.^^ 


0^ 


^'V 


Ofe" -S'^ 


T> 


REESE    LIBRARY 

OK    THh 

UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA. 
/Vmvm/, \ynba^    iss  ^ 

Accessions  Ao.^y^^///  S/ie/J  No.  . 

Z¥ ^ ri3 


Digitized  by  tli^  jjiternet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/criticalhistoricOOfolsrich 


CRITICAL  AND  HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION 


PROPHECIES  OF   DANIEL 


BY 


NATHANIEL  S.  FOLSOM. 


/?> 


BOSTON : 
CROCKER   &  BREWSTER. 

NEW  YORK  :    DAYTON  AND  NEWMAN. — ANDOVER  :    AILEN,  MORRILL 
AND   WARD  WELL. 

1842. 


^ 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1842,  by 

NATHANIEL  S.  FOLSOM, 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


ANDOVER : 
Allen,  Morrill  &  Wardwell,  Printers. 


PREFACE 


The  followiDg  work  contains  not  a  commentary  on  the  en- 
tire Book  of  Daniel,  but  an  interpretation  of  the  prophetic  parts 
found  in  chapters  ii,  vii,  viii,  ix,  xi,  xii,  with  particular  regard 
to  those  passages  which  are  supposed  by  many  to  predict  the 
personal  advent  of  our  Savior  A.  D.  1843.  There  are  also  pro- 
phecies in  chapters  iv,  v,  pertaining  to  the  kings  of  Babylon 
alone,  but  they  need  no  explanation.  The  narrative  portions 
which  occupy  the  remainder  of  the  Book,  require  little  or  no 
aid  to  be  readily  understood  ;  and  what  difficulties  exist  in  them, 
will  generally  be  found  solved  in  those  allusions  to  the  narra- 
tive parts,  which  an  interpretation  of  the  prophetic  has  made 
necessary. 

It  may  appear  to  some  a  foolish  and  to  others  an  unnecessa- 
ry matter,  to  notice  what  is  technically  called  "  Millerism ;"  for 
the  time  is  at  hand  which  will  effectually  test  its  truth  or  its 
falsehood.  But  surely  no  Christian,  no  serious  man  should  look 
on  with  indifference,  when  any  portion  of  the  popular  mind  is 
agitated  throughout,  and  swells  and  heaves  tumultuously,  to  cre- 
ate what  evil  it  may,  and  then  die  away  as  it  may.  The  admo- 
nition given  of  old,  "  Refrain  from  these  men  and  let  them  alone, 
for  if  this  work  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  nought," — is  of  value 
so  far  as  the  duty  to  refrain  from  acts  of  violence  is  concern- 
ed, but  ill  applies  to  the  discussion  of  any  truth,  or  the  arrest 
of  any  evil.  Not  a  few  have  adopted  Mr.  Miller's  views  who 
are  sober-minded  and  discerning  on  every  other  subject,  and 
many  more  are  searching  the  Scriptures  to  see  whether  these 
things  are  so,  and  they  ask  for  light.  They  have  not  been  ac- 
customed to  study  the  prophecies,  and  they  see  not  why  A.  D. 


IV  PREFACE. 

1843  may  not  be  the  date  as  well  as  1866,  etc.  which  have  been 
fixed  on  by  others.  They  also  feel  that  one  great  element  of 
truth  is  in  the  doctrine  of  the  second  advent,  as  advocated  by 
Mr.  Miller — 

"  The  Lord  will  come  !  but  not  the  same 
As  once  in  lowly  form  he  came, 
A  silent  lamb  to  slaughter  led, 
The  bruised,  the  suffering  and  the  dead. 

The  Lord  will  come  !  a  dreadful  form 
With  wreath  of  flame,  and  robe  of  storm, 
On  cherub  wings,  and  wings  of  wind, 
Anointed  Judge  of  human  kind." 

To  this  truth  Mr.  Miller  owes  the  greater  part  of  his  success. 
Possibly  also  this  element  of  truth  has  not  received  the  atten- 
tion in  modern  preaching  it  did  in  the  primitive  age,  and  it 
comes  to  the  people  now  as  something  comparatively  new  to 
them.  For  inquirers  on  this  subject,  it  will  not  be  a  thankless 
or  useless  task  to  have  written. 

Only  small  portions,  however,  of  this  work  will  be  found  de- 
voted to  the  modern  doctrines  of  the  personal  advent  of  our 
Lord,  A.  D.  1843.  What  is  said,  is  said  plainly,  and  he  who 
runs  may  read  that  whatever  else  may  be  derived  from  Daniel, 
the  doctrines  above  mentioned  cannot.  Whoever  wishes  to 
turn  to  those  portions  at  once  will  find  them  chiefly  on  pages 
29,  30,  42—44,  72,  73,  78—80,  84,fel40,  160,  161,  166,  167, 
173,  212— 21 5,  229.  The  general  scope  of  the  Interpretation  will 
throw  more  light  than  any  particular  parts  of  it.  But  the  pro- 
phecies of  Daniel  contain  vastly  more  than  can  be  interesting 
only  to  those  who  wish  to  see  it  satisfactorily  shown  that  he 
does  not  predict  the  end  of  the  world,  A.  D.  ]843.  The 
study  of  them  makes  it  necessary  to  introduce  much  historical 
matter  of  great  practical  value  and  of  the  deepest  interest.  A 
higher  end  still,  and  one  which  it  is  the  object  of  this  Interpre- 
tation to  promote  more  than  any  other,  is  the  impression  which 


PREFACE.  V 

these  prophecies  make,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
who  should  come  hito  the  world — an  impression  which  the  writer 
has  himself  experienced  more  deeply  than  before,  unless  he  is 
deceived,  and  which  he  would  impart  to  others.  Prophecy  and 
miracle  have  not  yet  done  all  they  were  designed  to  do,  and 
can  do,  in  working  with  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles  to  produce  a  tranquil,  firm  faith,  and  a  righteous  life. 

The  order  of  study  pursued  has  been  from  the  more  full, 
and  expanded,  and  clear  prophecies  to  the  more  brief,  and  com- 
prehensive and  difficult.  It  is  obvious  on  a  general  perusal, 
and  it  is  acknowledged  by  all  who  have  studied  these  prophe- 
cies, that  the  general  scope  of  each  prophecy  or  vision  is  the 
same,  or  that  they  all  tend  to  the  same  events.  It  would  ap- 
pear therefore  most  proper  to  investigate  the  latter  prophecies 
first,  and  especially  chap.  xi.  The  prophecy  next  in  clearness 
is  chap,  viii,  and  no  one  disputes  that  it  is  entirely  parallel  with 
chap.  xi.  Having  studied  and  closely  ascertained  the  meaning 
of  these  two  chapters,  the  next  in  order  is  seen  at  once  to  be 
chap,  vii,  which  is  parallel  with  chap,  viii,  through  the  series  of 
kingdoms  as  far  as  to  the  announcement  of  a  new  one  to  be  set 
up  by  the  God  of  heaven,  which  seems  to  be  its  own  unfold- 
ing ;  and  parallel  entirely  with  chap,  vii,  is  chap,  ii,  at  least  in 
its  events,  though  diflferent  in  description.  From  these  the 
way  is  open  to  chaps,  ix.  and  xii,  which  contain  the  remainder 
of  the  prophetic  portions.  The  appearance  of  order  in  Com- 
mentary, beginning  with  the  first  of  the  book  to  be  interpreted 
and  proceeding  through  to  the  last,  has  been  sacrificed  to  what 
has  been  judged  to  be  at  least  in  this  instance  the  true  and 
philosophical  mode  of  investigation.  The  path  by  which  the 
author  has  reached  his  results,  is  one  by  which  he  has  chosen 
to  lead  others. 

Those  familiar  with  the  history  of  Commentai-y,  will  see  that 

the  general  current  of  interpretation,  which  designates  the  fourth 

kingdom  as  the  Roman,  has  not  been  pursued.    The  author  must 

refer  for  all  his  reasons  to  his  book,  and  would  only  here  say 

1* 


VI  PREFACE. 

that  he  could  not  find  the  Roman  kuigdoin,  except  incidentally, 
in  chap,  xi,  which  is  pai'allel  with  chap,  viii,  and  with  the 
first  part  of  the  prophecies  in  chapters  ii,  vii.  But  in  his  in- 
terpretation, though  he  came  to  it  unaided  by  what  others  had 
said,  he  finds  himself  sustained  by  some  who  have  written  on 
the  subject  with  much  ability,  as  for  instance  in  the  Christian 
Review,  March  Number,  for  this  present  year.  The  con- 
tinuance of  the  opinion  that  the  fourth  kingdom  is  the  Ro- 
man, is  humbly  conceived  to  be  the  use  it  has  served  in  the 
controversy  of  Protestants  with  Roman  Catholics,  and  the  in- 
fluence of  great  names  like  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  and  perhaps 
the  manner  in  which  so  good  a  man  as  Bishop  Newton  has 
spoken  of  those  who  have  embraced  the  opposite  opinion,  as  be- 
ing only  influenced  by  a  "fondness  of  disputing  about  the  plainest 
points,"  and  as  maintaining  the  "strange  wild  conceit  of  Gro- 
tius,"  or  taking  part  with  the  infidel  Porphyry.  There  is  also 
the  coincidence  between  the  language  of  Daniel  on  the  fourth 
kingdom,  and  of  John  on  persecutions  after  Christ ;  which  has 
seemed  to  identify  them.  But  most  certainly  many  events  dif- 
ferent in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old,  are  yet  described 
in  the  same  language.  And  it  is  natural  that  great  oppressors 
and  persecutors,  who  must  in  so  many  general  points  resemble 
each  other,  should  be  described  in  nearly  the  same  language. 
Great  bad  men  are  much  alike,  and  hence  so  many  very  diverse 
applications  of  ihe  prophecies.  But  the  prophecies  cannot  de- 
scribe all  the  great  bad  men  in  the  world,  all  the  persecutors 
of  the  saints.  The  context  must  guide  to  the  particular  individ- 
uals designated ;  and  the  context  of  Daniel  by  its  specifications 
eind  dates,  shows  that  he  had  particular  individuals  m  view,  and 
not  a  class.  It  is  the  aim  of  this  Interpretation,  scrupulously 
and  faithfully  to  obey  this  guide. 


It  remains  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  Book  of  Daniel  it- 
self.    The  history  of  the  holy  man  whose  name  it  bears,  is  given 


PREFACE.  VU 

SO  fully  in  connexion  with  his  prophecies,  as  to  need  no  notice 
here.  He  uttered  his  first  prophecy  soon  after  he  was  intro- 
duced to  the  court  of  the  king,  and  when  he  could  not  have 
been  more  than  twenty-three  or  four  years  of  age.  His  first 
vision  was  revealed  to  him  forty-eight  years  after  his  first  pro- 
phecy ;  his  final  vision,  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus — which  must 
have  been  near  the  close  of  his  life,  for  he  was  then  at  least 
ninety  or  ninety-five  years  of  age,  and  we  hear  no  more  of  him 
afterward. 

The  Book  bears  throughout  the  impression  of  one  and  the 
same  hand.  The  chief  appearance  of  diversity  is  that  from  verse 
fourth  of  chapter  second  to  the  end  of  chapter  seventh,  it  is  writ- 
ten in  the  Chaldee  language,  but  the  remainder  is  in  Hebrew. 
This  is  a  peculiarity  worthy  to  be  noticed,  but  it  aflfects  not  the 
question  whether  the  whole  is  the  work  of  one  individual,  if  that 
individual  understood  both  languages — and  there  cannot  be  a 
doubt  that  Daniel  understood  them  both.  Why  he  thus  wrote, 
it  may  now  be  impossible  to  be  ascertained ;  only  conjecture 
can  supply  the  reasons.  All  that  is  written  in  Chaldee,  related 
particularly  to  the  Chaldean  kings  or  people,  except  chapter 
second  in  part,  and  also  chapter  seventh  in  part.  It  was  fit  that 
the  Chaldeans  should  have  these  events,  and  also  the  whole 
of  the  vision  of  the  series  of  kingdoms,  in  their  own  native  lan- 
guage. There  were  great  objects  to  be  gained  by  the  influence 
which  Daniel  should  exert  over  the  nation  that  conquered  his 
people ;  and  we  can  see  from  the  period  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream  and  onward,  how  a  divine  Providence  ordered  all  things 
so  that  Daniel  might  throw  his  protection  over  his  countrymen, 
meliorate  their  captivity,  and  perhaps  secure  the  decree  for  their 
restoration.  The  existence  of  these  records  in  the  Chaldee  lan- 
guage, would  of  course  further  this  influence,  and  in  this  is  an 
adequate  reason  for  a  part  of  these  prophecies  being  found  in  that 
language.  Perhaps,  too,  as  the  Hebrew  language  became  at  that 
time  greatly  corrupted,  many  of  his  countrymen  born  in  Chal- 
dea  would  understand  the  Chaldee  better  tlian  the  Hebrew, 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

That  these  prophecies  were  veritable  prophecies  of  Daniel, 
whose  name  they  bear,  we  have  the  surest  grounds  for  believ- 
ing. Whatever  apparent  difficulties  may  be  presented,  there  is 
the  authority  of  him  who  referred  his  disciples  to  "  Daniel  the 
prophet,"  Matt.  24:  15,  Mark  13:  14,  under  circumstances  too 
serious  to  admit  of  any  doubt  that  he  spake  from  his  own 
knowledge  and  faith.  It  seems  idle  to  say,  as  does  Rosenmiil- 
ler,  that  our  Savior  spake  only  according  to  the  received  opin- 
ion of  his  coteraporaries.  What  purpose  would  he  gain  by  it? 
Why  not  place  the  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
on  his  own  sole  authority,  if  there  had  been  no  prediction  ut- 
tered by  a  prophet  of  old  ?  What  more  difficulty  is  there  in 
believing  that  even  our  Lord  uttered  a  prediction  of  the  future 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  than  that  Daniel  did  ?  Why  must  not 
both  be  cast  aside,  if  either  ? 

There  is  also  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  B.  x.  c.  11.  sec.  7, 
which  will  be  found  in  the  Interpretation.  Some  among  the 
later  Jews  have  been  disposed  to  set  Daniel  aside,  but  there  is 
no  existence  of  a  doubt  up  to  the  Christian  era. 

The  internal  evidence  is  itself  strong,  as  even  those  acknow- 
ledge, who  deny  that  Daniel  was  the  author.  Says  one  of  this 
class,  Rosenmiiller,  "  There  is  nothing  to  be  found  in  the  book 
which  might  not  come  properly  from  Daniel ;  since  he  was 
born  a  Hebrew,  educated  at  the  court  in  Babylon,  imbued  with 
the  learning  of  the  Chaldeans  and  of  the  Magi,  and  especially 
skilled  in  interpreting  dreams ;  so  that  there  seems  to  be  scarce- 
ly a  reason  why  we  should  doubt  he  was  the  author  of  the 
book."  But  then  say  those  who  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the 
book,  there  are  the  strange  events  mentioned,  such  as  his  being 
cast  into  the  lion's  den,  etc.,  and  there  is  the  wonderful  partic- 
ularity of  events  in  the  closing  vision.  But  if  the  book  is  to  be 
regarded  as  not  genuine  because  of  the  miraculous  events,  what 
book  in  the  Scriptures  will  stand  ?  There  were  final  causes  in 
the  Captivity  and  the  Restoration  worthy  of  this  miraculous  in- 
terposition ;  and  a  miracle  in  any  age  like  that  of  being  un- 


PREFACE.  IX 

harmed  in  a  lion's  den,  or  thrown  into  a  seven  times  heated 
furnace,  and  coming  forth  without  a  touch  or  smell  of  fire  on 
the  garments,  is  not  greater  than  prophecy.  In  regard  to  the 
particularity  of  events,  it  is  indeed  wonderful,  and  it  is  well 
known  that  Porphyry,  an  ancient  opposer  of  the  Bible  and  Chris- 
tianity, argued  on  that  account  that  Daniel's  prophecies  niust 
have  been  written  ajler  the  events,  and  they  were  to  be  found 
too  all  recorded  in  history.*  But  the  particularity  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  Daniel  is  not  more  remarkable  than  some  of  the  pro- 
phecies of  our  Savior,  and  nothing  but  denial  without  the  sha- 
dow of  a  substantial  proof  is  brought  against  either. 

The  voice  which  itself  speaks  from  these  veiy  prophecies  is 
louder  than  any  external  proof,  and  he  who  hearkens  to  it  will 
find  it  difficult  not  to  feel  that  they  came  from  a  holy  man  of 
old  who  spake  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  from  that 
man  of  God  whose  name  is  imperishably  inscribed  on  his  pro- 
phecies. 

The  great  and  leading  object  of  these  prophecies  seems  to 
be,  to  fix  the  era  of  the  first  advent  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  to  teach  that  the  kingdom  of  God  would  be  set  up  at  the 
close  of  a  series  of  kingdoms,  the  last  of  which  had  been  a  great 
oppressor  of  the  Jews.  They  were  also  to  confirm  and  strength- 
en the  godly  in  times  of  great  trial,  cheering  them  with  pro- 
mises of  strength  equal  to  their  day,  and  a  full  participation  in 
every  blessing  promised  as  the  fruits  of  the  reign  of  the  Messiah. 
The  same  ofiice  of  confirming  and  strengthening,  the  visions 
of  Daniel  still  perform,  and  were  designed  to  perform,  in  helping 
the  disciple  more  firmly  to  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and, 
believing,  to  have  life  through  his  name.  They  are  still  the 
more  sure  word  of  prophecy,  a  light  shining  in  a  dark  place 
over  the  manger,  and  cross,  and  sepulchre  of  Jesus,  and  over 
the  mount  of  his  ascension  to  God's  right  hand,  until  the  day 
dawn,  and  the  day-star  arise  in  our  hearts,  (2  Pet  1 :  19,)  until 
with  all  the  other  helps  there  is  produced  that  firm  experience 

*  Comm.  p.  10. 


X  PREFACE. 

of  Christ  formed  in  us  the  hope  of  glory,  which  is  surer  than  all 
outward  proof,  higher  than  all  miracle — until  the  dawn  of  per- 
fect peace,  and  the  star  of  an  unchanging  confidence,  give  the 
foretokens  of  the  eternal  day  of  glory  when  God  shall  be  all 
iu  all. 

Is  there  not,  moreover,  a  use  for  these  prophecies  of  which  we 
scarcely  have  begun  to  think — that  they  will  be  a  great  and  effec- 
tual means  in  persuading  the  Jews  that  their  Messiah  has  indeed 
come  ?  On  their  hearts  has  long  been  die  vail ;  but  when  they 
begin  in  the  great  depths  of  their  sorrows  to  seek  the  Lord,  the 
vail  shall  be  taken  away,  and  perceiving  all  that  the  prophets  have 
spoken  of  Jesus,  shall  become  his  disciples.  The  great  moral 
drama  of  this  world  will  not  be  closed,  until  the  Jews  shall  be 
introduced  to  bow  the  knee  to  Jesus,  and  confess  that  he  is 
Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  Then  shall  even  those 
prophecies  which  have  seemed  only  to  shadow  forth  spiritual 
mercies  by  temporal  imagery,  be  even  literally  fulfilled  in  un- 
exampled earthly  peace  and  prosperity.  Then  in  the  Father's 
own  time  when  all  things  are  subdued  unto  him,  shall  the  quick 
and  the  dead  be  made  to  stand  before  Christ  the  Judge,  whose 
appearing  as  compared  with  his  first  advent  to  receive  his  king- 
dom, is  worthy  to  be  preeminently  distinguished  as  his  second 
COMING.  To  wait  for  Christ's  appearing,  is  not  to  expect  every 
moment  that  he  will  come  forth  from  his  throne  in  heaven,  but 
to  have  those  vivid  feelings  respecting  it  which  every  thought- 
ful Christian  has  at  least  at  limes,  when  that  period,  even  though 
it  be  a  thousand  years  ofi^,  shall  seem  to  be  hastening  on,  soon 
as  the  sun  which  sets  to-day  shall  come  on  the  morrow.  It  is 
to  look  for  the  providential  indications  of  his  coming,  as  gather- 
ed from  the  progress  of  his  kingdom,  and  as  a  disciple  to  feel 
that  the  arrival  of  that  kingdom  is  made  inseparably  connected 
with  his  own  efforts  to  extend  it  through  the  whole  world. 

Haverhill^  Mass, 
July  18,  1842. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


SECTION  I. 

INTERPRETATION  OF   CHAPTER    XI. 

Page. 
The  long  warfare  between  the   kings  of  Egypt  and  Syria,  with 
the  calamities  it  brought  on  the  Jews,         ....       13 

SECTION  II. 

INTERPRETATION  OF   CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  desecration  and  the  cleansing  of  the  sanctuary,         .         .       G2 
SECTION  IIL 

INTERPRETATION  OF   CHAPTER  VII. 

The  four  beasts,  the  little  horn  of  the  fourth,  and  the  reign  of  the 
Son  of  man, .       93 

SECTION  IV. 

INTERPRETATION  OF  CHAPTER  II  :    31 45. 

Nebuchadnezzar's  Dream, 141 

SECTION  V. 

INTERPRETATION  OF   CHAPTER  IX  :    24 27. 

The  vision  of  the  seventy  weeks, 164 

SECTION  VI. 

INTERPRETATION  OF  CHAPTER  XII. 
Conclusion, 201 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL. 


CHAPTER   XI. 

THE     LONG    WARFARE    BETWEEN    THE    KINGS    OF    EGYPT    AND 
SYRIA,  WITH  THE  CALAMITIES  IT  BROUGHT  ON  THE  JEWS. 

Chapters  x,  xi,  xii,  contain  one  vision.  Chap.  x.  is  in- 
troductory, and  needs  no  explanation  except  what  will  be  giv- 
en under  the  other  two. 

1       Also  I,  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede,  even  I,  stood  to  con- 
firm and  strengthen  him. 

The  introduction  does  not  end  with  chap,  x,  but  extends 
through  this  verse,  and  through  the  first  clause  of  the  verse 
following. 

Darius  the  Mede,  was  the  Cyaxares  II,  son  of  Astyages,  of 
profane  history.  He  was  king  of  Media,  when  Babylon  was 
taken  by  the  confederate  armies  of  the  Medes  and  Persians, 
under  the  command  of  Cyrus,  then  a  Persian  prince,  the  son 
of  Mandane,  Cyaxares'  sister,  and  of  Cambyses,  her  husband, 
king  of  Persia.  Darius  "  was  made  king  over  the  realm  of 
the  Chaldeans"  (9:  1)  in  the  year  538  before  the  Christian 
era,  and  the  Medes  and  Persians  then  began  to  flow  together 
into  one  empire — Cyrus  consenting  that  his  uncle  should 
have  a  joint  title  with  him  in  the  government,  and  yielding 
him  the  first  place  of  honor  during  life.  On  the  death  of  Da- 
rius, about  two  years  afterward,  Cyrus,  who  had  married  the 
2 


14  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  II:   1. 

daughter  of  Darius,  became  sole  head  of  the  empire.    Comp- 
Dan.  5:  28,  31  and  Isa.  45:  1—3. 

Whom  did  the  angel  stand  to  confirm  ?  Darius,  cr  Mi- 
chael ?  The  two  last  verses  of  chap.  x.  read  thus : — *'  And 
now  will  I  return  to  fight  with  the  prince  of  Persia :  and 
when  I  am  gone  forth,  lo,  the  prince  of  Graecia  shall  come 

and  there  is  none  that  holdeth  with  me  in  these  things 

but  Michael  your  prince."  The  word  translated  holdeth  is 
only  another  form  of  the  same  verb  translated  to  conjirm; 
and  the  meaning  is,  that  none  but  Michael  joined  his  strength 
with  Gabriel's,  none  but  Michael  assisted  and  upheld  him 
against  the  princes  of  Persia  and  Greece.  Thus  also,  10: 
13, — "  The  prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia  withstood  me 
one  and  twenty  days :  but  lo  Michael;  one  of  the  chief 
princes,  came  to  help  me ;  and  I  remained  there  with  the 
kings  of  Persia."  As  the  angel  Gabriel  had  said,  10:  13,  20, 
21,  that  Michael  helped  him,  so  here,  in  11:  1,  he  says  that 
he  once  helped  Michael.  The  assistance  rendered  by  Mi- 
chael to  Gabriel,  was  not  long  before  Gabriel  appeared  in 
this  vision  to  Daniel,  viz.  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Cy- 
rus, 534  B.  C.  (See  10:  1.)  The  aid  rendered  by  Gabriel 
to  Michael  was  in  the  first  year  of  Darius,  five  years  before 
Michael  rendered  a  similar  service  to  him.  It  was  not  Da- 
rius, therefore,  but  the  angel  Michael,  the  tutelar  angel  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  whom  Gabriel  "  stood  to  confirm." 

This  language  is  probably  symbolical,  though  it  has  for  its 
basis  the  real  existence  and  agency  of  angels ;  and  by  it  events 
are  described  which  are  narrated  in  plain  terms  in  sacred  his- 
tory. After  the  Jews  had  returned  to  their  own  land,  agree- 
ably to  a  decree  of  Cyrus  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  and 
had  begun  to  build  their  temple,  *' the  people  of  the  land 
hired  counsellors  against  them  to  frustrate  their  purpose,  all 
the  days  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  even  until  the  reign  of  Da- 
rius, [Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes,]  king  of  Persia,"  Ezra  4: 
4,  5.     This  opposition  began  as  early  as  the  second  year  of 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  2.  15 

the  return  of  the  Jews,  (Ezra  3:  8,)  and  some  injurious  in- 
fluence would  seem  to  have  been  exerted  on  the  mind  of  Cy- 
rus, and  to  have  led  Daniel  to  observe  a  season  of  humilia- 
tion and  fasting,  10:  2,  3.  During  that  period  of  anxiety, 
Daniel  searched  the  Scriptures  still  more  carefully,  (see  10: 
12,)  to  understand  whether  deliverance  from  captivity  was 
then  truly  to  come  to  his  countrymen ;  how  soon  also  the 
greater  deliverance  by  their  Messiah  was  to  come.  And  the 
twenty-one  days  during  which  Gabriel  is  represented  as  hav- 
ing been  withstood  by  the  prince  of  Persia,  10:  13,  corres- 
pond with  the  time  during  which  Daniel  was  fasting.  For 
the  event  symbolized  by  the  declarations  in  10:  20 — "  When 

1  am  gone  forth,  lo,  the  prince  of  Graecia  shall  come" — see 
under  11:  3. 

2  And  now  will  I  shew  thee  the  truth.  Behold,  there  shall  stand 
up  yet  three  kings  in  Persia ;  and  the  fourth  shall  be  far  richer  than 
thp.y  all :  and  by  his  strength  through  his  riches,  he  shall  stir  up 
all  against  the  realm  of  Graecia. 

The  word  "  the  truth,''  is,  in  10:  21,  "  that  which  is  noted 
in  the  scripture  [or  book]  of  truth" — i.  e.  what  is  purposed 
surely  to  take  place.  With  this  clause  the  introduction  ends ; 
and  here,  or  at  the  end  of  the  first  verse,  should  have  been 
the  division  of  chapters  x  and  xi. 

This  revelation  was  made  to  the  prophet,  as  already  noticed, 
in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  (10:  1,)  and  it  rela- 
ted to  long  warfare ;  for  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
that  place  translated  "  time  appointed."  After  Cyrus,  who 
died  529  B.  C,  were  (1)  Cambyses  his  son,  the  Ahasuerus 
mentioned  in  Ezra  4:  6,  whose  reign  closed  522  B.  C. ;  (2) 
Smerdis,  an  impostor  and  usurper,  the  Artaxerxes  mentioned 
in  Ezra  4:  7,  who  perished  after  a  reign  of  about  seven 
months;  (3)  Darius,  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  who  married 
the  daughter  of  Cyrus,  and  died  486  B.  C,  having  reigned 
thirty-six  years.     The  fourth  king  was  Xerxes  I,  who  having 


16  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  3. 

made  preparation  throughout  all  the  Persian  empire  for  three 
years  together,  invaded  Greece,  480  B.  C,  at  the  head  of  an 
army  of  five  millions,  including  the  attendants  of  the  camp — 
though  this  number,  as  indeed  most  accounts  of  numbers 
given  by  the  Greek  historians  of  their  enemies,  may  be  re- 
ceived with  considerable  abatement.  He  also  formed  an  alli- 
ance with  the  Carthagenians,  and  engaged  them  to  muster 
an  army,  (which  were  collected  partly  out  of  Africa,  and 
partly  out  of  Spain  and  Gaul,  and  numbered  300,000,)  to  ha- 
rass the  Greek  colonies  in  Sicily  and  lower  Italy,  while  he 
should  fall  on  Greece  itself.  To  prepare  such  an  expedition, 
and  sustain  so  vast  a  multitude,  caused  immense  expense ; 
and  yet  was  his  wealth  still  superabundant.  There  is  a  re- 
mark of  Herodotus,  which  strikingly  confirms  the  last  clause 
of  this  verse — ■"  What  nation  was  there,"  says  the  Greek 
historian,  "  that  Xerxes  led  not  out  of  Asia  into  Greece  ?" 

3       And  a  mighty  king  shall  stand  up,  that  shall  rule  with  great  do- 
minion, and  do  according  to  his  will. 

This  was  Alexander  the  Great,  who  ascended  the  throne 
of  Macedon,  336  B.  C.  Between  the  death  of  Xerxes  and 
the  commencement  of  Alexander's  reign,  there  was  an  inter- 
val of  one  hundred  and  twenty  years ;  and  eight  kings  more 
sat  on  the  throne  of  Persia,  the  last  of  whom  was  Darius 
Codomanus.  Alexander  having  subdued  Egypt  and  Asia 
Minor,  and  destroyed  Tyre  and  Gaza,  proceeded  against 
Darius,  conquered  him,  and  became  master  of  the  whole  Per- 
sian empire,  331  B.  C.  He  was  now  lord  of  all  the  nations 
between  the  Hadriatic  Sea  and  the  river  Ganges.  He  ruled 
with  despotic  sway  ;  and  it  may  be  said  of  him  as  was  said 
by  the  prophet  of  a  king  of  Babylon,  "  Whom  he  would  he 
slew,  and  whom  he  would  he  kept  alive,  and  whom  he  would 
he  set  up,  and  whom  he  would  he  put  down,"  Dan.  5:  19. 

When  Alexander  was  in  Palestine,  and  had  taken  Tyre, 
he  sent  out  commissaries  to  obtain  provisions.     The  Jews 


IJNTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  4.  17 

refused  to  furnish  supplies,  alleging  their  oath  of  subjection 
to  Persia.  Alexander  was  so  enraged,  that  as  soon  as  he  de- 
stroyed Tyre,  he  marched  against  Jerusalem,  to  punish  the 
Jews  as  severely  as  he  had  punished  the  Tyrians.  He  was 
met  by  the  high  priest  and  sanhedrim  in  their  official  costume, 
and  by  all  the  people  in  white  robes,  in  solemn  procession, 
out  of  the  city ;  and  whether  from  awe  at  the  spectacle,  or 
from  recollecting,  as  Josephus  relates  it,  that  the  very  person 
now^  high  priest  appeared  to  him  in  a  dream,  in  Macedonia, 
and  in  the  name  of  God  promised  him  success  in  the  war 
against  Persia,  (though  this  dream  was  probably  a  device  by 
Alexander  to  turn  the  omen  of  the  religious  procession  to  good 
account,  for  the  encouragement  of  his  army,)  whether  from 
one  cause  or  the  other,  his  rage  was  subdued,  he  himself  did 
homage  to  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  became  the  patron  of 
the  Jews.  To  this  event  does  the  angel  probably  allude,  10: 
20,  when  he  says,  "  And  now  will  I  return  to  fight  with  the 
prince  of  Persia ;  and  when  I  am  gone  forth,  lo,  the  prince  of 
Graecia  shall  come." 

The  reason  why  Xerxes  was  the  last  Persian  king  spoken 
of,  is  probably  that  his  expedition  into  Greece  first  led  the 
way  to  the  downfall  of  his  kingdom.  For  he  met  with  a  se- 
ries of  disastrous  defeats,  which  stimulated  the  Greeks  to 
make  successive  expeditions  on  their  part  into  Persia,  until 
under  Alexander  they  conquered  it.  The  expedition  of 
Xerxes  was  in  effect  the  ruin  of  Persia,  and  so  historians  re- 
gard it. 

4  And  when  he  shall  stand  up,  his  kingdom  shall  be  broken,  and 
shall  be  divided  toward  the  four  winds  of  heaven ;  and  not  to  his 
posterity,  nor  according  to  his  dominion  which  he  ruled :  for  his 
kingdom  shall  be  plucked  up,  even  for  others  besides  those. 

Alexander  perished,  of  a  drunken  debauch,  or,  as  some  say, 
of  poison,  at  the  age  of  thirty-three,  after  a  reign  of  about 
twelve  years,  when  he  stood  at  the  height  of  his  conquests. 
2* 


18  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  4. 

His  kingdom  was  broken  like  a  potter's  vessel.  Great  confu- 
sion arose,  on  his  death,  in  respect  to  the  succession.  For 
though  he  had  a  son  by  his  wife  Barsina,  named  Hercules, 
and  another  child  was  expected  by  Roxana,  and  a  natural 
brother,  Aridaeus,  was  living,  he  refused  to  bequeath  his 
sceptre  to  either  of  them,  or  to  any  one  else,  except,  as  he 
said,  "to  the  most  worthy."  It  was  at  last  settled  in  a  con- 
ference of  his  officers,  that  Aridaeus  should  be  proclaimed 
king ;  the  expected  child  by  Roxana,  if  a  son,  be  associated 
with  him  in  the  empire,  and  the  government  of  the  provinces 
be  distributed  among  the  generals.  The  expected  heir  was 
born,  Alexander  Aegus.  Aridaeus  was  put  to  death,  with 
many  of  his  friends,  after  a  reign  of  seven  years,  by  Olympias, 
Alexander's  mother,  who  had  now,  by  means  of  her  grandson, 
gotten  the  power  into  her  own  hands.  Next  she  herself  was 
slain,  by  Cassander,  governor  of  the  province  of  Macedon,  in 
revenge  for  the  death  of  his  brother,  one  of  the  number  of 
Aridaeus'  friends  that  had  been  put  to  death.  Being  ambi- 
tious of  the  throne  of  Macedon,  Cassander  slew  the  young 
king  also,  at  the  age  of  fourteen,  with  his  mother,  310  B.  C. 
And  in  the  year  following,  Hercules,  the  remaining  son,  and 
his  mother,  were  despatched  by  the  governor  of  the  Pelopon- 
nesus, where  they  then  were. 

In  the  year  304  B.C.,  many  of  Alexander's  generals,  among 
whom  the  government  of  the  provinces  had  been  distributed, 
took  the  name  of  kings,  as  they  were  already  in  reality,  and 
falling  into  war  and  alliance  among  themselves,  were  reduced 
to  four,  between  whom  there  was  a  formal  division  of  the 
kingdom,  301  B.  C. ;  viz.  Cassander,  who  had  Macedonia 
and  Greece  on  the  west  of  Palestine ;  Lysimachus,  who  had 
Thrace,  Bithynia,  and  part  of  Asia  Minor,  on  the  north ; 
Seleucus,  who  had  Mesopotamia,  Babylonia,  Syria,  on  the 
east  and  north-east,  and  also  considerable  territory  in  Asia 
Minor ;  Ptolemy,  son  of  Lagus,  who  had  Arabia,  Egypt  and 
Libya  on  the  south,  also  Palestine  and  Ccele-Syria,  i.  e.  Hoi- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  lit  5.  19 

low  Syria,  the  valley  lying  between  the  two  ridges  of  the  Leb- 
anon mountains,  and  extending  from  the  32nd  to  the  33d  de- 
gree of  latitude,  sometimes,  however,  including  more — the 
eastern  boundary  line  being  the  mountains  on  the  east  and 
north-east  of  the  Jordan,  embracing  Philadelphia,  and  sweep- 
ing around  Damascus.  The  phrase  "  toward  the  four  winds 
of  heaven,"  does  not  probably  denote  here  this  exact  divi- 
sion of  four,  but  means  that  Alexander's  kingdom  was  di- 
vided asunder  in  every  direction.  Compare  Matt.  24:  31, 
"  He  shall  gather  his  elect  from  the  four  winds."  Thus  was 
Alexander's  kingdom  plucked  up  forever,  and  others  besides 
his  heirs  were  established  in  his  place. 

5  And  the  king  of  the  south  shall  be  strong,  and  one  of  his  princes ; 
and  he  shall  be  strong  above  him,  and  have  dominion ;  his  kingdom 
shall  be  a  great  dominion. 

The  king  of  the  south  was  the  king  of  Egypt,  viz.  Ptolemy, 
son  of  Lagus — the  words  "  south"  and  "  north"  being  used 
to  denote  the  countries  lying  in  those  directions  from  Pales- 
tine. He  was  the  first  established  in  his  kingdom,  and  hav- 
ing gained  possession  of  Jerusalem  by  treachery,  ( Josephus 
xii.  1,)  he  claimed  Palestine  in  the  partition  of  the  kingdom. 
"  One  of  his  princes,"  means  another  of  Alexander's  chief- 
tains, viz.  Seleucus  Nicator,  who  assumed  the  title  of  king 
of  Syria;  in  the  next  verse  "king  of  the  north."  Ptolemy 
was  a  powerful  prince,  but  Seleucus  became  mightier  than 
he,  and  the  race  of  kings,  that  sprung  from  him,  stronger 
than  the  Egyptian,  as  the  sequel  of  the  chapter  will  show. 
He  is  called  by  the  ancient  historians  "  the  greatest  king  after 
Alexander."  He  subjected  to  his  sway  all  the  countries  from 
the  Hellespont  to  India,  and  the  era  of  the  Seleucidae  dates 
from  his  reign.  The  history  of  these  two  kings  is  now  alone 
taken,  because  the  others  had  no  concern  with  Judea,  and 
were  soon  displaced.  Judea  fell  now  to  one,  and  then  to  the 
other  of  them,  as  it  had  also  to  Greece,  and  Persia,  and 
Babylon. 


20  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  6. 

6  And  in  the  end  of  years  they  shall  join  themselves  together;  for 
the  king's  daughter  of  the  south  shall  come  to  the  king  of  the  north 
to  make  an  agreement :  but  she  shall  not  retain  the  power  of  the  arm  ; 
neither  shall  he  stand,  nor  his  arm  :  but  she  shall  be  given  up,  and 
they  that  brougltt  her,  and  he  that  begat  her,  and  he  that  strength- 
ened her  in  these  times. 

About  fifty  years  had  elapsed  from  the  division  of  the  king- 
dom in  301  B.  C,  and  Ptolemy  I,  Seleucus  I,  and  Antio- 
chus  I,  Soter,  his  son  and  successor,  were  dead.  Ptolemy  II, 
Philadelphus,  son  of  Ptolemy  1,  and  Antiochus  II,  Theus, 
son  of  Antiochus  I,  were  now  on  the  thrones  of  Egypt  and 
Syria, — the  appellations  "  king  of  the  north,"  and  "  king  of 
the  south,"  being  used  here  for  the  race  of  the  two  respective 
monarchs  of  Egypt  arid  Syria.  They  had  been  engaged  in 
war  with  each  other,  until  a  peace  was  agreed  on,  solicited 
by  Antiochus  TI,  on  account  of  revolts  in  his  eastern  provinces. 
The  conditions,  to  which  Antiochus  II.  submitted,  were,  that 
divorcing  his  first  wife  Laodice,  and  disinheriting  her  chil- 
dren, he  should  marry  Ptolemy's  daughter,  Berenice,  and 
settle  the  succession  of  the  kingdom  on  her  male  issue.  Be- 
renice accordingly  came,  accompanied  by  her  father,  and  a 
large  retinue  of  Egyptian  servants,  first  to  Pelusium,  and 
thence  by  sea  to  Syria.  The  phrase  which  describes  the  ob- 
ject of  her  coming,  and  which  is  translated  "  to  make  an 
agreement,"  is  literally  to  effect  an  adjustment,  or  ratify  peace. 
Ptolemy  II.  died  two  years  after  his  daughter's  marriage,  and 
thus  she  retained  not  the  power  of  the  arm,  i.  e.  her  father's 
aid  to  Syria  and  herself.  "  He  that  begat  her,"  and  "  strength- 
ened her"  was  taken  away  by  death.  Antiochus  also  was 
soon  to  fall.  For  having  now  nothing  to  hope  or  to  fear  from 
his  old  enemy,  and  recent  ally,  (*'  arm,")  he  removed  Bere- 
nice, and  recalled  Laodice,  who,  to  prevent  a  repetition  of 
her  disgrace,  and  redeem  her  children  from  disinheritance, 
took  an  early  opportunity  to  poison  her  husband.  She  also 
caused  Berenice,  with  her  infant  son,  and  very  many  of  her 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  7 ^9.  21 

Egyptian  o.7«"^"'ants,  {"  they  who  brought  her,")  to  be  slain, 
and  by  a  decree  forged  in  the  name  of  the  deceased  king, 
procured  the  succession  of  the  kingdom  to  Seleucus  II,  Cal- 
iuicus,  her  eldest  son,  246  B.  C. 

For  the  phrase  "  he  that  begat  her,"  there  is  the  marginal 
reading,  in  the  English  Bible,  "  he  whom  she  brought  forth," 
— i.  e.  her  son  who  was  slain  along  with  her.  This  reading 
may  be  the  true  one,  but  it  requires  an  alteration  of  the  pre- 
sent vowels  of  the  Hebrew  word. 

7  But  out  of  a  branch  of  her  roots  shall  one  stand  uj)  in  his  estate, 
which  shall  come  with  an  army,  and  shall  enter  into  the  fortress 
of  the  king  of  the  north,  and  shall  deal  against  them,  and  shall 

8  prevail :  and  shall  also  carry  captives  into  Egypt  their  gods,  with 
their  princes,  and   with  their  precious  vessels  of  silver  and  gold ; 

9  and  he  shall  continue  more  years  than  the  king  of  the  north.  So 
the  king  of  the  south  shall  come  into  his  kingdom,  and  shall  re- 
turn into  his  own  land. 

"A  branch  of  her  roots,"  was  her  brother  Ptolemy  III, 
Euergetes,  by  the  same  father  Ptolemy  II,  whom  he  succeed- 
ed on  the  throne  of  Egypt.  He  hastened,  with  the  army, 
(the  definite  article  is  in  the  original,  also  the  preposition 
commonly  rendered  to,  which  may  describe  his  coming  forth 
to  the  army  to  place  himself  at  their  head,)  to  avenge  the 
death  of  his  sister.  He  made  himself  master  of  almost  all 
Syria,  slew  Laodice,  and  was  subjugating  the  Syrian  pro- 
vinces in  the  east,  when  he  was  obliged  to  return  home,  to 
quell  a  sedition  that  arose  in  his  absence.  The  "  fortress  of 
the  king  of  the  north,"  was  probably  Seleucia,  a.  fortified 
place,  the  sea-port  of  Syria,  one  of  the  nine  cities  of  that 
name  built  by  Seleucus  I.  It  lay  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Orontes,  which,  flowing  from  the  Lebanon  mountains,  emp- 
tied into  the  north-eastern  section  of  the  Mediterranean. 
Ptolemy  took  this  city,  among  others  in  Syria,  placed  in  it 
an  Egyptian  garrison,  which  held  possession  for  about  thirty 
years,  until  Antiochus  the  Great  recaptured  it.   (Comp.  under 


22  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  7 9. 

verse  10.)  The  chief  city  of  Syria,  and  residence  of  the  Sy- 
rian kings,  was  Antioch,  fifteen  miles  above  Seleucia,  on  the 
same  river,  built  also  by  Seleucus  I,  and  named  in  honor  of 
his  father,  or,  according  to  some,  of  his  son  and  successor, 
Antiochus  I.  There  is  no  mention  in  history,  that  Ptolemy 
took  Antioch  itself.  He  returned  to  Egypt,  carrying  vi^ith 
him  out  of  the  Syrian  provinces  an  immense  quantity  of  ves- 
sels of  silver  and  gold,  and  idols  to  the  number  of  twenty-five 
hundred,  among  which  were  many  that  Cambyses,  son  of 
Cyrus,  had  seized  in  an  expedition  into  Egypt,  and  carried 
into  Persia.  The  word  translated  "princes,"  has  in  the 
original  the  primary  meaning  o^ molten  images,  which  is  doubt- 
less its  signification  in  verse  8. 

Some  translate  the  phrase,  "  shall  continue  more  years," 
etc.,  "  shall  continue  some  years  after  the  king  of  the  north." 
This  indeed  expresses  the  same  sentiment ;  but  the  preposi- 
tion used  in  this  particular  connexion,  is  the  common  parti- 
cle to  denote  the  comparative  degree. 

The  last  clause  of  verse  9,  grammatically  reads.  He  [the 
king  of  the  north]  shall  come  against  the  kingdom  of  the 
king  of  the  south,  and  shall  return  to  his  own  land.  Seleu- 
cus Callinicus  prepared  a  great  army  against  Ptolemy  to  re- 
cover the  dominions  which  Ptolemy  had  seized,  but  he  was 
defeated.  A  peace  having  been  concluded  between  them, 
at  the  instance  of  Ptolemy,  243  B.  C,  Seleucus,  some  twelve 
years  after,  marched  into  the  east,  to  subdue  the  province  of 
the  Parthians,  which  had  revolted  from  him.  He  was  over- 
thrown, taken  prisoner  by  Arsaces  governor  of  the  Parthians, 
and  confined  there  until  he  died  of  a  fall  from  his  horse,  226 
B.  C.     Ptolemy  III.  out-lived  him  some  four  or  five  years. 

10  But  his  sons  shall  be  stirred  up,  and  shall  assemble  a  multitude 
of  great  forces  :  and  one  shall  certainly  come,  and  overflow,  and 
pass  through  :  then  shall  he  return,  and  be  stirred  up,  even  to  his 
fortress. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL   11:  10,   11.  23 

The  sons  of  Seleucus  Callinicus  were  Seleucus  III,  Cerau- 
nus  and  Antiochus  III,  the  Great.  Seleucus  Ceraunus  suc- 
ceeded to  the  throne,  and  chiefly  by  the  instrumentality  of  his 
kinsman  Achaeus,  was  excited  ("  stirred  up")  to  proceed  at 
the  head  of  an  array  to  the  recovery  of  what  had  been  lost  in 
his  father's  reign ;  but  proving  inefficient,  he  was  poisoned  by 
two  of  his  generals.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  younger  bro- 
ther Antiochus,  B.  C.  223,  then  a  youth  of  only  fifteen  years 
of  age.  On  the  death  of  Ptolemy  III,  Euergetes,  and  the 
succession  of  his  son  Ptolemy  IV,  Philopater,  B.  C.  221,  An- 
tiochus was  influenced  by  his  prime-minister  Hermias  to  pro- 
ceed directly  against  the  king  of  Egypt ;  but  his  first  cam- 
paign effected  but  litde.  His  second  resulted  in  the  recap- 
ture of  Seleucia,  and  in  getting  possession  also  of  Ptolemais, 
Tyre  and  Damascus,  cities  of  Coele-Syria,  with  many  cities 
of  Palestine,  which,  in  the  partition  of  Alexander's  kingdom, 
had  been  assigned  to  the  king  of  Egypt.  He  also  took  Phil- 
adelphia beyond  Jordan,  a  place  of  great  strength,  the  an- 
cient Rabbath-Ammon,  rebuilt  by  P.  Philadelphus,  and  call- 
ed by  his  name.  The  clause,  "  then  shall  he  return,"  etc. 
seems  to  denote,  not  the  return  of  Antiochus  to  his  own  city, 
(comp.  verse  7,)  but  his  penetrating  to  one  of  the  fortified 
cities  of  the  king  of  Egypt — perhaps  Philadelphia,  to  which 
he  marched,  after  several  battles  on  the  sea  coast.  Or  the 
word  "  return"  may  be  connected  with  the  following  verb, 
and  have  the  force  of  the  adverb  again,  (which  is  a  very  fre- 
quent Hebrew  usage,)  and  here  describe  his  march  on  his  se- 
cond  expedition  as  far  as  Raphia,  a  frontier  fortress  of  Egypt. 

]  1  And  the  king  of  the  south  shall  be  moved  with  choler,  and  he 
shall  come  forth  and  fight  with  him,  even  with  the  king  of  the 
north  :  and  he  [the  king  of  the  north]  shall  set  forth  a  great  multi- 
tude ;  but  the  multitude  shall  be  given  into  his  hand. 

P.  Philopater  in  person  now  took  the  field,  at  the  head  of 
a  large  army  of  70,000  foot,  5,000  horse,  and  73  elephants. 


24  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:   12 14. 

and  encamped  at  Raphia.  Antiochus  met  him  with  an  army 
of  62,000  foot,  6,000  horse,  and  102  elephants,  and  experi- 
enced a  total  defeat. 

12  And  when  he  hath  taken  away  the  multit\ide,  his  heart  shall  be 
lifted  up  ;  and  he  shall  cast  down  many  ten  thousands  :  but  he 
shall  not  be  strengthened  by  it. 

P.  Philopater  was  a  profligate  king,  easily  elated,  and  too 
fond  of  pleasure  to  pursue  the  advantage  he  had  just  gained, 
—otherwise,  he  might  have  deprived  Antiochus  of  his  whole 
empire.  He  made  peace  with  Antiochus  on  condition  of  the 
cession  of  Palestine  and  Coele-Syria,  and  thus  gave  Antio- 
chus opportunity  to  recruit.  Much  discontent  followed  in 
consequence  of  his  lenity  to  Antiochus,  which  terminated  in 
open  rebellion. 

13  For  the  king  of  the  north  shall  return,  and  shall  set  forth  a  mul- 
titude greater  than  the  former,  and  shall  certainly  come  after  cer- 
tain years  with  a  great  army  and  with  much  riches. 

Antiochus  having  been  on  an  expedition  of  several  years 
in  the  east,  to  subdue  rebellions,  and  strengthen  his  domin- 
ion, now  returned  with  the  reputation  of  a  great  and  valiant 
prince,  and  with  resources  vastly  increased. 

14  And  in  those  times  there  shall  many  stand  up  against  the  king 
of  the  south  :  also  the  robbers  of  thy  people  shall  exalt  themselves 
to  establish  the  vision;  but  they  shall  fall. 

To  "  establish  the  vision "  seems  to  denote  the  vision 
against  the  king  of  the  south,  viz.  that  "  many  shall  stand  up 
against  the  king  of  the  south."  About  the  time  of  the  re- 
turn of  Antiochus  from  the  east,  Ptol.  Philopater  died,  and 
Ptolemy  V,  Epiphanes,  his  son,  was  placed  on  the  throne,  at 
five  years  of  age,  204  B.  C.  There  was  a  conspiracy  formed 
against  him  in  Egypt,  as  soon  as  his  father  died.  Very  soon 
after  this,  Antiochus,  and  Philip,  the  fifth  king  of  Macedon 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:    15.  25 

from  the  death  of  the  sons  of  Cassander,  entered  into  a  league 
to  seize  and  divide  the  dominions  of  the  young  king.  Those 
designated  by  the  phrase  "  robbers  of  thy  people," — robbers 
of  the  prophet's  countrymen, — could  not  have  been  the  Ro- 
mans, as  some  have  supposed ;  for  the  Romans  were  not 
against,  but  for  the  young  king,  and  therefore  did  not  con- 
firm the  part  of  the  vision  which  relates  to  the  king  of  the 
south.  Thfe  phrase  has  been  supposed  by  others*  to  designate 
violent  men  among  the  Jews,  who  seized  the  opportunity  of 
Antiochus'  entrance  into  Palestine,  in  the  second  year  of 
Ptolemy's  reign,  to  revolt  from  Ptolemy,  to  whom  they  were 
then  subject,  and  join  Antiochus  against  him,  but  who  were 
afterwards  severely  chastised  by  Scopas,  General  of  the  Egyp- 
tian forces,  sent  to  recover  Palestine,  while  Antiochus  was 
absent  on  an  expedition  against  the  king  of  Pergamos.  To 
this  it  seems  an  almost  insuperable  objection,  that  those  who 
joined  Antiochus  are  called  "  upright  ones,"  in  v.  17.  The 
phrase  more  probably  designates  Scopas  himself,  who,  while 
discharging  his  commission  to  subdue  the  Jews,  had  enrich- 
ed himself  with  plundering  them.  He,  too,  plotted  against 
Ptolemy's  life,  in  the  ninth  year  of  his  reign,  but  neglecting 
the  opportunity  to  strike  the  blow  at  once,  was  discovered^ 
and,  with  his  accomplices,  who  perhaps  were  in  the  army 
with  him,  and  shared  some  of  the  plunder,  put  to  death. 

The  phrase  is  literally,  sons  of  burglars  of  thy  people.  In 
the  Septuagint  it  is,  sons  of  the  pests  of  thy  people.  The 
same  word  translated  "  robbers,"  is  applied  to  wild  beasts, 
Is.  35:  9,  where  it  is  translated  "  ravenous.''''  It  is  also  ap- 
plied to  those  who  spoiled  and  devastated  the  Jews,  Ezek.  7: 
22.  The  word  sons  denotes  here,  as  also  in  many  other 
places,  the  class  or  kind  of  persons. 

15       So  [Heb.  And]  the  king  of  the  north  shall  come,  and  cast  up  a 
mount,  and  take  the  most  fenced  cities  :    and  the  arms  of  the 

*  Rosenmuller,  Bishop  Newton. 
3 


26  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  16,  17. 

south  shall  not  withstand,  neither  his  chosen  people,  neither  shall 

16  there  be  any  strength  to  withstand.  But  he  that  cometh  against 
him  shall  do  according  to  his  own  will,  and  none  shall  stand  be- 
fore him  :  and  he  shall  stand  in  the  glorious  land,  which  by  his 
hand  shall  be  consumed. 

Antiochus  besieged  and  took  Sidon,  Gaza,  and  other  forti- 
fied cities  in  Palestine.  Those  armies  which  were  as  arms 
to  Egypt,  for  its  defence,  even  its  choicest  troops,  he  easily 
repulsed,  and  no  insurmountable  obstacles  stood  in  his  way. 
He  then  with  a  small  detachment  entered  the  province  of  Ju- 
dea, — "  the  glorious  land,"  (comp.  verse  20,  also  Ezek.  20: 
6,  15) ;  but  he  there  encountered  so  much  resistance  from 
an  Egyptian  garrison  left  in  Jerusalem,  that  to  reduce  it  he 
was  obliged  to  summon  his  whole  army.  As  he  was  occu- 
pied some  time  in  taking  the  garrison,  the  sustenance  of  the 
land  was  consumed  by  the  soldiers.  And  Josephus  well  re- 
marks on  the  war  between  Antiochus  and  Egypt,  that  whe- 
ther the  former  was  conqueror,  or  was  beaten,  it  was  the  fate 
«^the  Jews  to  suffer,  like  a  ship  tossed  in  a  tempest  between 
the  angry  billows,  Antiq.  xii.  chap,  iii,  sec.  iii.  The  last 
clause  may  however  read.  He  shall  stand  in  the  glorious 
land,  and  destruction  shall  be  in  his  han^.  There  are  soiilfe 
who  apply  these  two  verses  to  the  Romans,  but  it  does  vio- 
lence to  the  context,  and  proceeds  on  the  suppositon  that  the 
Romans  are  designated  by  the  phrase  "  robbers  of  thy  peo- 
ple." It  would,  moreover,  be  improper  for  the  Romans  to 
receive  the  title  of  "  king  of  the  north,"  merely  for  the  victory 
they  afterwards  obtained  over  Antiochus,  (verse  18) ;  be- 
cause they  did  not  take  his  kingdom  from  him,  nor  make 
fiim  tributary,  but  simply  required  him  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  the  war. 

17  He  shall  also  [even]  set  his  face  to  enter  with  the  strength  of 
his  whole  kingdom,  and  upright  ones  with  him ;  thus  shall  he  do  : 
and  he  shall  give  him  the  daughter  of  women,  corrupting  her ; 
but  she  shall  not  stand  on  his  side,  neither  be  for  him. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:   18,  19.  27 

Antiochus  had  fully  determined  to  undertake  the  conquest 
of  Egypt,  and  was  devoting  all  his  strength  to  the  work. 
The  Jews,  here  called  "  upright  ones,"  (i.  e.  compared  with 
the  surrounding  heathen,  or  so  called  because  they  were  a 
nation  consecrated  to  God,)  had  transferred  their  allegiance 
from  Ptolemy  to  him,  and  now  aided  him  against  their  for- 
mer master.  He  gave  his  daughter  Cleopatra  to  Ptolemy, 
for  the  furtherance  of  his  ambitious  schemes,  and  used  hii? 
influence  to  induce  her  to  betray  her  husband.  But  she  es- 
poused her  husband's  cause,  and  joined  with  him  in  congratr 
ulating  the  Romans  for  the  victory  they  obtained  over  hei 
father.  The  last  clauses  may,  however,  read.  And  he  shall 
give  him  a  young  damsel  to  ruin  it,  [i.  e.  his  land,]  but  it  [vizr. 
this  device]  shall  not  stand,  neither  shall  it  be  for  him. 

18  After  this  shall  he  turn  his  face  unto  tlie  isles,  and  shall  take 
many :  but  a  prince  for  his  own  behalf  shall  cause  the  reproach 
offered  by  him  to  cease  :  without  his  own  reproach  he  shall  cause 

19  it  to  turn  upon  him.  Then  he  shall  turn  his  face  toward  the  foit 
of  hiS  own  land :  but  he  shall  stumble  and  fall,  and  not  be  found. 

By  "  isles,"  is  meant,  probably,  not  islands  which  he  took 
along  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  but  the  Peloponnesus,  and  the 
isles  and  maritime  towns  of  Greece,  then  under  the  protection 
of  the  Romans,  and  confederate  with  them.  Antiochus,  to 
stop  the  growing  power  of  the  Romans  eastward,  and  to 
check  their  interference  in  aid  of  Egypt  against  himself,  had 
resolved  to  wage  war  against  them.  With  a  fleet  of  about 
three  hundred  vessels,  he  took  Rhodes,  Samos,  Colophon,  and 
penetrated  to  Euboea,  a  large  island  on  the  eastern  coast 
of  Greece.  The  next  season,  the  Romans  came  against 
him,  under  Acilius,  the  Consul,  and  the  two  armies  met  at 
Thermopylae,  where  Antiochus'  army  were  all  cut  off",  but 
about  five  hundred.  The  year  after,  conquered  both  by  sea 
and  land,  on  the  coasts  of  Asia,  by  the  Romans  under  Lucius 
Scipio,  thei  Consul,  he  submitted  to  a  disgraceful  peace,  the 


28  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  20. 

conditions  of  which  were,  that  he  should  quit  Asia  Minor, 
and  pay  the  expenses  of  the  war,  estimated  at  15,000  talents ; 
five  hundred  down,  twenty-five  hundred  on  the  ratification  of 
the  treaty  by  the  Senate,  and  the  remaining  twelve  thousand 
in  twelve  successive  years.  He  returned  to  Syria,  [in  the 
original  it  is^br^s,  or  strong  holds,  plural;  i.  e.  not  Antioch 
only,  but  the  fortified  cities  of  his  land ;]  thence  went  into 
his  eastern  provinces,  to  replenish  his  exhausted  treasury,  en- 
tered a  temple  in  the  province  of  Elymais  in  Babylonia,  to 
seize  its  treasures,  and  there  perished,  with  his  followers,  a 
victim  to  the  rage  of  the  people  at  his  sacrilege,  187  B.  C, 
after  a  reign  of  thirty-six  years.  Some  of  the  ancient  histo- 
rians say,  that  he  was  slain  in  a  drunken  carousal  by  his  own 
men.  The  victory  which  the  Romans  obtained  over  him, 
was  without  one  reproachful  defeat  on  their  part.  The  phrase 
"  for  his  own  behalf,"  v.  18,  is  the  same  in  the  original  with 
the  phrase  "  upon  him,"  at  the  close  of  the  verse,  and  the 
preposition  may  be  rendered  either  for  or  upon.  The  clause 
literally  reads — But  a  prince  shall  cause  his  reproach  (i.  e. 
the  reproach  offered  by  Antiochus)  to  cease  for  him — i.  e.  to 
Antiochus'  own  disadvantage. 

20  Then  shall  stand  up  in  his  estate  a  raiser  of  taxes,  in  the  glory 
of  the  kingdom :  but  within  few  days  he  shall  be  destroyed,  nei- 
ther in  anger,  nor  in  battle. 

"  The  glory  of  the  kingdom,"  is  doubtless  Palestine,  which 
was  the  best  portion  of  the  kingdom,  (comp.  note  to  v.  16, 
also  the  designation  "fattest  places  of  the  province,"  v.  24.) 
"  A  raiser  of  taxes,"  etc.  is,  in  the  original,  one  who  shall 
cause  the  exactor  to  pass  over  the  glory  of  the  kingdom. — 
"  Stand  up  in  his  estate,"  (to  stand  upon  his  base,  or  in  his 
stead,)  is  used  in  the  next  verse,  and  also  v.  7,  to  denote  regu- 
lar succession  to  the  empire.  To  "  be  destroyed  neither  in 
anger  nor  in  battle,"  is  to  be  despatched  in  some  secret  man- 
ner, instead  of  beinor  slain  either  in  a  civil  commotion,  as  was 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  21.  29 

Antiochus  the  Great,  or  in  war.  All  these  things  agree  in 
Seleucus  IV,  Philopator,  and  in  him  alone.  He  succeeded 
Antiochus  the  Great,  of  whom  he  was  the  eldest  son.  Through 
the  whole  of  his  reign,  he  was  obliged  to  extort  from  his  suV 
jects  the  one  thousand  talents  a  year,  to  pay  his  father's  debt 
to  the  Romans.  The  very  event  of  his  sending  money-col- 
lectors into  Judea,  is  recorded  in  2  Mace.  iii.  He  reigned 
only  for  the  short  space  of  ten  years,  and  was  "destroyed" 
by  poison  administered  by  Heliodorus,  his  treasurer,  176  B.  C. 
There  are  those  who,  in  their  calculation  of  the  end  of  the 
world  in  1843,  apply  this  20th  verse  to  Augustus  Caesar,  and 
make  it  a  chief  point  in  the  construction  of  their  chart  of 
chronology.  Now  Augustus  Caesar  cannot  be  here  meant; 
for,  first,  Augustus,  at  Rome,  did  not  succeed  Antiochus  the 
Great,  in  Syria.  Antiochus  being  removed,  like  a  statue 
from  its  pedestal,  Augustus  was  not  set  up  in  his  stead.  Se- 
condly, he  was  not  taken  away  within  few  days,  but  reigned 
forty-five  years.  Thirdly,  he  was  not  "  destroyed,"  not  kill- 
ed in  battle,  nor  despatched  in  a  secret  manner,  but  he  died 
peacefully,  in  the  bosom  of  his  attendants,  at  the  advanced 
age  of  seventy-six.  To  apply  the  verse  to  him,  therefore,  is 
at  variance  as  well  with  history,  as  with  the  scope  of  the  chap- 
ter and  laws  of  language.  True,  it  is  recorded  in  Luke  3: 
1,  that  "there  went  out  a  decree  from  Caesar  Augustus  that 
all  the  world  should  be  taxed."  But  Augustus  is  not  the  only 
monarch  who  has  taxed  the  people  of  his  empire,  or  the  peo- 
ple of  Judea ;  and  two  monarchs  who  agree  only  ia  one  re- 
spect, while  they  totally  differ  in  others  more  important,  can- 
not be  one  and  the  same. 

21  And  in  his  estate  shall  stand  up  a  vile  person,  to  whom  they 
shall  not  give  the  honor  of  the  kingdom  :  but  he  shall  come  in 
peaceably,  and  obtain  the  kingdom  by  flatteries. 

The  same  interpreters  suppose  that  this  "  vile  person  "  was 
Tiberius ;  but  as  Augustus  was  not  designated  in  the  prece- 
3* 


30  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  21. 

ding  verse,  neither  can  his  successor,  Tiberius,  be  meant  in 
this.  It  is,  moreover,  equally  opposed  to  history ;  for  the 
sovereignty  of  Rome  was  repeatedly  tendered  by  the  Senate 
to  Tiberius,  and  at  last  accepted. 

To  Seleucus  IV,  Philopator,  Antiochus  IV,  Epiphanes 
succeeded,  and  to  him  alone  does  this  description  answer. 
He  also  is  the  individual  designated  by  "  king  of  the  north," 
and  "  the  king,"  throughout  the  remainder  of  the  chapter — 
as  will  be  made  abundantly  manifest. 

Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  younger  brother  to  Seleucus  IV, 
and  had  been  sent  to  Rome  by  his  father,  Antiochus  the 
Great,  as  a  hostage  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  of 
peace.  Seleucus  IV,  some  time  after  he  ascended  the  throne, 
recalled  his  brother,  having  first  sent  to  Rome,  Demetrius, 
his  own  son  and  lawful  heir.  Meantime,  Seleucus  was  de- 
stroyed before  Antiochus  Epiphanes  reached  home.  Helio- 
dorus,  the  treasurer  who  poisoned  Seleucus,  as  above  men- 
tioned, was  aiming  to  get  the  throne,  and  he  had  the  consent 
of  a  large  portion  of  the  people.  There  were  a  part  also  in 
favor  of  Ptolemy  VI,  Philometor,  a  youth  only  twelve  years 
old,  who  had  succeeded  to  Ptolemy  V,  Epiphanes,  and  whose 
mother  was  sister  to  the  deceased  king,  Seleucus,  and  there- 
fore to  Antiochus.  But  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  by  flattering 
professions  and  promises,  having  obtained  the  help  of  Eume- 
nes,  king  of  Pergamos,  and  of  Attalus,  his  brother,  procured 
the  Expulsion  of  Heliodorus,  and  securely  seated  himself  on 
the  throne,  with  no  open  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  people 
— they,  too,  having  been  conciliated  by  his  flattering  profes- 
sions. 

The  phrase  "  honor  of  the  kingdom,"  is  not  exactly  the 
same  with  "  glory  of  the  kingdom,"  v.  20,  and  seems  to  be 
employed  to  denote  the  majesty  of  royalty,  not  Palestine, 
which  had  already  been  called  "glory  of  the  kingdom." 

Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  most  fitly  called  "  a  vile  person." 
He  lounged  about  the  streets  of  Antioch,  drunk,  and  caroused 


^  or  THE       ^ 

UK-IVERSI^ 

TERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11: 

with  the  dissipated,  sung  songs  and  played  on 
promote  their  merriment,  and  gratified  his  brutal  lust  in  open 
sight  of  the  people.  So  outrageous  were  his  acts  of  folly  and 
shame,  that  he  was  often  called,  not  by  his  title,  Epipha- 
nes,  the  illustrious^  but  Epimanes,  the  mad-man.  He  would 
parade  the  streets  of  Antioch  in  a  long  robe,  with  a  garland 
of  roses  on  his  head,  and  if  any  attempted  to  pass  by  him,  he 
would  pelt  them  with  stones,  which  he  carried  concealed  un- 
der his  garment.  At  games  in  honor  of  Jupiter  Olympius, 
in  the  groves  of  Daphne,  near  Antioch,  he  rode,  in  proces- 
sion, on  a  miserable  horse.  At  the  feast,  suddenly  throwing 
up  his  cup  and  food,  he  ran  the  whole  circuit  of  the  table, 
and  in  the  concluding  entertainment  by  comedians,  played 
antics,  naked,  along  with  them.  Such  are  only  a  few  exhi- 
bitions of  his  vileness,  among  the  many  which  history  records. 

22      And  with  the  arras  of  a  flood  shall  they  be  overflown  from  be- 
fore him,  and  shall  be  broken  ;  yea,  also  the  prince  of  the  covenant. 

The  very  first  year  of  his  reign  opened  with  injuries  to 
the  Jews.  Onias,  at  that  time  High  Priest,  was  removed,  to 
give  place  to  Jason  his  brother,  who  had  obtained  it  of  the 
king  by  paying  a  large  sum  of  money,  and  by  promising  to 
use  the  influence  of  his  station  in  bringing  the  Jews  over  to 
heathen  manners  and  customs.  Onias  had  held  the  office 
twenty-four  years,  and  it  is  recorded  that  "  the  laws  were  kept 
very  well,  because  of  the  godliness  of  Onias  the  High  Priest, 
and  his  hatred  of  wickedness,"  2  Mace.  3:  1. 

As  soon  as  Jason  entered  upon  his  office,  he  began,  in  ac- 
cordance with  his  promise,  to  induce  his  countrymen  to 
adopt  heathen  manners  and  customs ;  he  set  them  a  signal 
example,  in  sending  to  Tyre,  to  the  celebration  in  honor  of 
Hercules,  at  which  the  king  was  present,  an  offering  of  three 
hundred  talents ;  he  instituted  the  exercises  of  the  gymna- 
sium, in  Jerusalem,  which  seduced  the  priests  as  well  as  the 


32  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  22. 

people  from  regular  attendance  on  the  duties  of  the  temple, 
2  Mace.  4:  12,  14,  18,  19. 

In  the  year  172  B.  C,  Jason's  younger  brother,  Menelaus, 
by  offering  a  still  higher  price  for  the  high-priesthood,  re- 
ceived an  appointment  from  the  king  to  the  office,  and  Jason 
was  required  to  retire.  Menelaus  found  his  brother's  party 
too  strong  for  him,  and  he  returned  unsuccessful  to  Antioch. 
On  his  solemnly  abjuring  the  Jewish  religion,  along  with  his 
followers,  and  promising  to  bring  the  whole  nation  to  aposta- 
tize to  the  religion  of  the  heathen — an  event  which  Jason 
had  not  yet  accomplished,  to  any  general  extent — he  obtained 
such  aid  from  the  king  as  Jason  could  not  resist,  and  became 
established  in  the  high-priesthood,  171  B.  C.  Then  began 
to  ensue  a  wide-spread,  general  apostasy.*  This  same  year 
also,  Menelaus,  on  being  summoned  before  the  king,  because 
he  had  neglected  to  pay  the  price  of  his  promotion,  left  his 
brother,  Lysimachus,  as  his  deputy,  who  took  many  of  the 
golden  vessels  out  of  the  temple,  to  discharge  Menelaus'  debt 
to  the  king.  This  act  of  Lysimachus  produced  a  tumult  in 
which  he  was  slain,  near  the  treasury,  within  the  precincts  of 
the  temple. 

Onias,  after  long  confinement  at  Antioch,  was  treacherous- 
ly slain  at  the  instigation  of  Menelaus,  whom  he  had  severely 
reproved  for  the  recent  sacrilege  committed  by  Lysimachus. 
His  removal,  terminating  in  violent  death,  (though  his  death 
was  not  with  consent  of  the  king,)  is  described  in  the  last 
clause  of  the  verse, — "yea,  also  the  prince  of  the  covenant" 
[shall  be  broken].  Substantially  the  same  appellation  is  given 
to  the  high  priests  in  Is.  43:  28,  viz.  "  the  princes  of  the  sanc- 
tuary." Prince  of  the  covenant,  means  head  of  the  religious 
institutions  of  the  Jews,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  head  of 
the  sanctuary  where  those  institutions  were  observed.     Some 

*  It  is  observed  in  Henry's  Commentary,  that  Josephus  dates  this 
defection  in  the  142nd  year  of  the  Seleucidte, — i.  e.  171  B.  C. — ^the  6th 
month  and  6th  day  of  the  month ;  but  this  date  cannot  be  found. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  23.  33 

interpreters  have  translated  this  last  clause  *'  the  prince  that 
is  allied  with  him,"  viz.  Ptolemy  Philometor,  his  nephew. 
But  it  is  a  great  objection  to  this  interpretation,  that  the  word 
"  covenant"  always  means,  in  Daniel,  the  holy  covenant  of 
the  Jews,  and  that  the  idea  of  alliance,  when  meant,  is  con- 
veyed by  another  word — which  is  also  used  twice  in  this  pro- 
phecy, viz.  in  verses  6,  23 ;  where  in  v.  6,  it  is  translated 
"  shall  join  themselves  together,"  and  in  v.  23,  "  after  the 
league  made  with  him." 

Nor  can  the  phrase  "  prince  of  the  covenant,"  mean  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  for  the  "  vile  person"  being  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  and  not  Tiberius  in  whose  reign  our  Lord  Jesus 
was  crucified,  so  the  object  of  that  vile  person's  violence  could 
not  have  been  our  Savior.  Christ  is  indeed  called  the  "  me- 
diator of  the  new  covenant,"  and  in  Mai.  3:  1,  is  designated 
as  the  "  messenger  of  the  covenant."  But  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that  he  shares  many  names  in  common  with  others, 
such  as  "Apostle  and  High  Priest,"  etc.  Heb.  3:  1. 

To  the  calamities  above  narrated,  and  to  yet  others  follow- 
ing them,  was  the  language  most  applicable,  "  With  the  arms 
of  a  flood  [as  by  a  wide-reaching  flood],  shall  they  be  over- 
flown from  before  him." 

23  And  after  the  league  made  with  him  he  shall  work  deceitfully : 
for  [Heb.  and]  he  shall  come  up  and  become  strong  with  a  small 
people. 

The  context  would  seem  to  denote  a  league  made  with  the 
Jews.  Josephus  remarks,  on  an  occasion  which  will  be  no- 
ticed under  verse  28,  that  Antiochus  Epiphanes  "  pretending 
peace,  got  possession  of  the  city  by  treachery,  and  ventured 
to  break  the  league  he  had  made,"  Book  xii.  ch.  v.  sec.  iv. 
And  again,  in  his  second  book  against  Apion,  sec.  vii.,  "  He 
[the  king]  attacked  us  while  we  were  his  associates  and 
friends."  With  comparatively  small  forces,  reduced  under 
the  reign  of  hi?  two  predecessors,  he  had  become  mighty ;  and 


34  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  24. 

his  success  and  growing  power  led  him  to  violate  the  pledges, 
which  he  had  given,  in  his  feebler  condition,  to  induce  the 
provinces  attached  to  his  kingdom  still  to  adhere  to  him. 

Possibly  the  first  clause  of  verse  23,  has  its  explanation  in 
the  following  note  in  Prideaux's  Connexions,  Vol.  II.  p.  129, 
where  he  quotes  from  Athenseus,  "  These  expenses  were  made 
partly  out  of  the  prey,  which,  contrary  to  his  faith  given,  he 
took  in  Egypt,  from  king  Philometor,  then  a  minor." 

24  He  shall  enter  peaceably  even  upon  the  fattest  places  of  the 
province ;  and  he  shall  do  that  which  his  fathers  have  not  done, 
nor  his  fathers'  fathers ;  he  shall  scatter  among  them  the  prey, 
and  spoil,  and  riches  :  yea^  and  he  shall  forecast  his  devices  against 
the  strong  holds,  even  for  a  time. 

In  the  year  173  B.  C,  Antiochus  sent  Apollonius  to  Egypt, 
to  congratulate  the  young  king  on  the  occasion  of  his  becom- 
ing of  age,  and  receiving  the  crown — for  until  then,  the  af- 
fairs of  Egypt  were  conducted  by  the  regency  of  his  mother, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  ministers  of  state.  He  learned,  on 
Apollonius'  return,  that  the  Egyptian  government  were  "  not 
well  affected  to  his  affairs,"  and  were  intending  to  recover 
Palestine.  He  accordingly  "  provided  for  his  own  safety," 
and  "  came  to  Joppa,  and  from  thence  to  Jerusalem,  where 
he  was  honorably  received  of  Jason,  and  of  the  city,  and  was 
brought  in  with  torch-light,  and  with  great  shoutings ;  and 
so  afterward  went  with  his  host  unto  Phenice,"  2  Mace. 
4:  21,  22.  This  expedition  of  Antiochus  was  to  prevent  the 
frontiers  and  fortified  cities  from  falling  into  the  hands  of  Ptol- 
emy, and  to  put  all  things  into  a  thorough  posture  of  defence. 
He  had  come  into  the  possession  of  the  territory  of  Palestine 
and  Coele-Syria,  securely,  and  without  open  resistance — or 
possibly  the  word  "  peaceably"  may  denote  both  in  this  verse 
and  verse  21 ,  comparatively  quiet  times.  He  scattered  among 
his  soldiers  and  partizans,  most  freely,  gold,  silver  and  re- 
wards, the  spoils  of  the  provinces  in  which  he  gave  them  rule, 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  25,  26.  35 

or  through  which  he  led  them  in  his  expeditions — and  this 
to  attach  them  more  closely  to  his  interests.  Profusion  and 
prodigality  were  characteristic  of  him.  In  his  drunken  mo- 
ments, he  often  threw  money  among  the  crowd,  and  gave  gold 
to  entire  strangers  whom  he  accidentally  met,  and  sometimes 
presented  great  sums  of  money  to  cities  in  his  kingdom. 
There  is  a  remark,  in  point,  in  1  Mace.  3:  30, "  He  feared  he 
should  not  be  able  to  have  such  gifts  to  give  so  liberally  as  he 
did  before  ;  for  he  had  abounded  above  the  kings  that  were 
before  him."  Comp.  also  2  Mace.  5: 15,  16,  quoted  under 
verse  28. 

25  And  he  shall  stir  up  his  power  and  his  courage  against  the  king 
of  the  south  with  a  great  army  ;  and  the  king  of  the  south  shall  be 
stirred  up  to  battle  with  a  very  great  and  mighty  army  ;  but  he 
shall  not  stand  :  for  they  shall  forecast  devices  against  him. 

Two  years  after  Ptolemy  VI.  was  crowned,  Antiochus  re- 
solved not  to  wait  for  the  threatened  expedition  of  Egypt  into 
Palestine,  but  himself  to  carry  the  war  into  the  enemy's  coun- 
try. He  marched  toward  the  frontiers  of  Egypt,  where  he 
met  Ptolemy's  army  ;  and  mainly  by  stratagem  and  great- 
er skill,  ["  forecasting  devices,"  laying  and  executing  his 
schemes,]  he  obtained  the  victory.  At  this  time  he  attempted 
nothing  further,  but  returned  to  Tyre,  put  his  army  into  win- 
ter quarters,  and  made  preparations  for  a  vigorous  campaign 
the  next  season. 

26  Yea,  they  that  feed  of  the  portion  of  his  meat  shall  destroy  him, 
and  his  army  [the  army  of  Antiochus]  shall  overflow  :  and  many 
shall  fall  down  slain. 

In  the  opening  of  the  year  170  B.  C,  Antiochus  began  his 
next  campaign.  It  is  thus  narrated  in  1  Mace.  1:  17 — 19, 
"  He  entered  into  Egypt  with  a  great  multitude,  with  chariots, 
and  elephants,  and  horsemen,  and  a  great  navy,  and  made  war 
against  Ptolemee  king  of  Egypt :  but  Ptolemee  was  afraid  of 


36  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11;  27. 

him,  and  fled  ;  and  many  were  wounded  to  death.  Thus  they 
got  the  strong  cities  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  he  took  the 
spoils  thereof."  Ptolemy's  army  met  Antiochus'  on  the  bor- 
ders of  Egypt,  and  were  overcome,  and  Pelusium,  a  frontier 
city,  was  taken  by  the  invaders.  Antiochus  followed  up  his  ad- 
vantage, poured  his  forces  into  Egypt  as  a  flood,  penetrated 
into  the  heart  of  the  empire,  made  himself  master  of  all  but 
Alexandria,  and  Ptolemy  himself  came  into  his  hand§. 

By  the  phrase  "  they  that  feed  of  the  portion  of  his  meat," 
are  designated  the  king's  ministers,  Comp.  Dan.  1:5,  15,  19. 
Now  Eulseus,  prime  minister  of  state,  to  whom  the  young 
prince's  education  was  intrusted,  had  corrupted  him  with  all 
manner  of  luxury  and  effeminacy.  Together  with  Lenna^us, 
his  associate  minister  of  state,  after  having  demanded,  in  the 
name  of  the  young  king,  the  territory  of  Palestine,  he  adopted 
measures  most  inefficient  and  inadequate  ;  and  it  was  proba- 
bly through  the  influence  of  these  same  ministers  that  Ptole- 
my surrendered  his  person  to  Antiochus.  Thus  "  they  that 
fed  of  the  portion  of  his  meat,"  prepared  the  way  for  these 
disastrous  defeats.  The  word  rendered  "  destroy"  literally 
means  to  break,  and  is  found  elsewhere  in  such  connections 
as  the  following — "  Reproach  hath  broken  my  heart" — "  I 
have  broken  the  arm  of  Pharaoh,"  Ps.  69:  20.  Ezek.  30:  21. 
It  denotes  not  the  literal  destruction  of  his  person,  but  the 
ruin  of  his  fortunes,  the  overthrow  of  his  power. 

27  And  both  these  kings'  hearts  shall  be  to  do  mischief,  and  they 
shall  speak  lies  at  one  table  ;  but  it  shall  not  prosper  :  for  yet  the 
end  shall  be  at  the  time  appointed. 

Antiochus  and  Ptolemy  each  endeavored  to  circumvent  the 
other.  Antiochus,  at  whose  table  Ptolemy  ate,  professed, 
but  falsely,  to  manage  the  aff*airs  of  Egypt  as  guardian  to  the 
young  king,  his  sister's  son.  Meantime  the  Alexandrians, 
looking  on  Philometor  as  lost,  and  having  his  younger  brother 
with  them,  put  him  on  the  throne,  with  the  title  of  Ptolemy 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  28.  37 

Euergetes  II.  Antiochus,  who  had  found  Alexandria  too 
strong  for  him,  laid  a  scheme,  at  the  close  of  an  expedition 
the  year  following,  to  engage  the  two  brothers  in  war,  so  that 
the  whole  kingdom,  weakened  by  intestine  troubles,  might  be- 
come his  surer  and  more  easy  prey.  But  Philometor  began  now 
to  be  roused  by  his  misfortunes  from  his  effeminacy  and  sloth ; 
he  saw  through  the  plots  of  Antiochus,  and  the  two  brothers 
coming  to  an  agreement  that  both  should  reign  conjointly, 
they  sent  embassadors  to  Greece  for  auxiliary  forces.  Thus 
what  seemed  to  promise  so  well  for  Antiochus'  prosperity, 
amounted  to  nothing.  His  power  to  oppress  was  not  to  con- 
tinue, his  kingdom  not  to  grow  more  and  more  extensive,  and 
powerful,  and  permanent,  but  to  be  broken  to  pieces  and  de- 
stroyed, at  the  time  appointed  in  the  councils  of  Heaven, 
Comp.  verse  36.  The  word  translated  "  time  appointed,"  is 
here  altogether  different  from  that  in  10: 1,    See  under  verse  2. 

28  Then  shall  he  [Heb,  And  he  shall]  return  into  his  land  with 
great  riches  ;  and  his  heart  shall  be  against  the  holy  covenant  ; 
and  he  shall  do  exploits^  and  return  to  his  own  land. 

While  Antiochus  was  in  Egypt  on  his  second  expedition,  in 
the  year  170  B.  C,  a  report  spread  at  the  north  that  he 
was  dead,  and  Jason,  who  had  been  compelled  to  give  place 
to  Menelaus,  (see  under  verse  22,)  now  thinking  it  a  favorable 
moment  to  recover  his  office,  marched  to  Jerusalem  with  a 
thousand  men,  and  aided  by  many  of  his  party  residing  in  the 
city,  forced  Menelaus  into  the  fortress  on  mount  Zion,  and 
made  great  slaughter  of  those  he  thought  his  adversaries. 
An  exaggerated  rumor  of  the  occurrence  reaching  Antiochus, 
and  leading  him  to  suppose  the  Jews  had  revolted,  he  hastened 
thither  on  his  return  to  Antioch,  laden  with  the  rich  spoils  of 
his  Egyptian  campaign.  Jason  fled  at  his  approach,  and  fi- 
nally perished  a  miserable  exile,  in  Lacedemonia.  Antiochus 
entered  Jerusalem  with  his  army  ;  and  though  it  had  not  re- 
volted, yet  he  was  so  enraged  at  learning  the  people  made  great 
4 


88  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  29. 

rejoicings  at  the  report  of  his  death,  that  he  plundered  the  city, 
and  slew  40,000  of  its  inhabitants,  and  made  slaves  of  as  many 
more.*  "  Not  content  with  this,  he  presumed  to  go  into  the 
most  holy  temple  of  all  the  world  ;  Menelaus,  that  traitor  to 
the  laws,  and  to  his  own  country,  being  his  guide  :  and  taking 
the  holy  vessels  with  polluted  hands,  and  with  profane  hands 
pulling  down  the  things  that  were  dedicated  by  other  kings  to 
the  augmentation,  and  glory,  and  honor  of  the  place,  he  gave 
them  away."  He  also  "  carried  out  of  the  temple  1800  tal- 
ents," 2  Mace.  5:  15, 16,  21.  Comp.  also,  1  Mace.  20—24. 
Having  perpetrated  these  deeds,  and  "  left  governors  to  vex 
the  nation — at  Jerusalem,  Philip,  for  his  country  a  Phrygian, 
and  for  manners  more  barbarous  than  he  that  set  him  there  ; 
and  at  Gerizim,  Andronicus  ;  and  beside,  Menelaus,  who 
worse  than  all  the  rest  bare  an  heavy  hand  over  the  citizens, 
having  a  malicious  mind  against  his  countrymen,  the  Jews," 
2  Mace.  5:  22,  23 — having  done  these  things,  he  returned  to 
his  own  land.t  The  phrase  "  he  shall  do  exploits"  is,  in  the 
original,  like  that  in  v.  17,  "  thus  shall  he  do," — i.  e.  shall 
accomplish  his  purpose. 

29       At  tlie  time  appointed  he  shall  return,  and  come  toward  the 
south  ;  but  it  shall  not  be  as  the  former,  or  as  the  latter. 

At  the  time  appointed  in  the  councils  of  heaven,  he  went 
again  to  Egypt  with  a  large  army  of  foot  and  cavalry,  enraged 
at  the  combination  of  the  two  Ptolemies,  and  determined  to 

*  It  is  said  in  2  Mace.  5:  1 1 ,  that  Antiochus  "took  the  city  by  force 
of  arms."  Josephus  says,  Book  xii.  chap  vii.,  that  he  "entered  the  city 
without  fighting,  those  of  his  own  party  opening  the  gates  to  him." 
Probably  he  used  force  at  first,  the  inhabitants  through  fear  making 
some  resistance  against  his  entrance ;  but  soon  the  gates  were  opened 
in  the  manner  Josephus  relates. 

t  Prideaux  and  others  relate,  that  Antiochus  sacrificed  a  swine  at 
this  time,  and  with  part  of  the  flesh  made  a  broth  which  he  sprinkled 
all  over  the  temple.  But  it  is  not  mentioned  by  Josephus,  or  in  the 
two  books  of  the  Maccabees. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  30,  31.  39 

wage  a  more  furious  war.  But  this  expedition,  unlike  either 
of  the  others,  was  destined  to  be  abortive,  and  calamitous  to 
himself.  The  clause  "  it  shall  not  be  as  the  former,  or  as  the 
latter,"  may  read,  it  shall  not  be  the  latter  time  as  at  the  former. 

-l)  For  the  ships  of  Chittim  shall  come  against  him  ;  therefore  he 
shall  be  grieved,  and  return,  and  have  indignation  against  the  holy 
covenant  :  so  shall  he  do  [and  shall  execute  his  purpose]  ;  he 
shall  even  return,  and  have  intelligence  with  tliem  that  forsake  the 

31  holy  covenant.  And  arms  shall  stand  on  his  part,  and  they  shall 
pollute  the  sanctuary  of  strength,  and  shall  take  away  the  daily 
sacrijicr,  and  they  shall  place  the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate. 

Kittim,  or  Chittim,  occurs  in  Gen.  10:  4,  as  a  name  of  one  of 
the  sons  of  Javan,  by  whom  the  isles  of  the  Gentiles  were  di- 
vided. As  in  many  other  like  instances,  the  name  of  the  per- 
son was  given  to  the  place  which  he  settled.  Chittim  is  gen- 
erally mentioned  in  the  Bible  as  a  place  to  and  from  which  the 
communication  was  by  ships,  Num.  24:  24.  Jer.  2:  10.  Ezek. 
27:  6.  Is.  23:  12.  It  is  applied,  in  1  Mace  1:  1,  to  Macedonia 
and  Greece.  The  following  is  from  Josephus,  Book  i.  ch  vi. 
sec.  i. — Cethimus  [Chittim]  possessed  the  island  Cethima  :  it 
is  now  called  Cyprus  ;  and  from  that  it  is,  that  all  islands,  and 
the  greatest  part  of  the  sea-coasts  are  named  Cethim  [Chittim 
or  Kittim]  by  the  Hebrews." — The  phrase  "  holy  covenant," 
is  synonymous  with  the  sacred  institutions,  the  holy  religion,  of 
the  Jews. — The  phrase,  "sanctuary  of  strength,"  is  literally 
sanctuary,  the  strong  place — which  it  truly  was.  Tacitus, 
in  his  History,  Bk.  v.  sec.  12,  speaks  of  it  as  built  "  after  the 
manner  of  a  citadel  and  proper  wall  :  the  porches  by  which  it 
was  surrounded  were  a  most  excellent  fortress."  This  epithet 
of  strength  is  found  also  in  Ps.  96:  6, — "  Strength  and  beauty 
are  in  his  sanctuary." 

The  words  "  daily  sacrifice,"  are  in  the  original,  the  per- 
petual. The  phrase  is  found  in  full,  in  Num.  28:  3,  6,  10, 
etc. ;  also  Ex.  29:  38 — 42,  (where  the  account  of  its  institu* 


40  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  30,  31. 

tion  is  given)  viz.  the  continual  burnt  offering,  i.  e.  the  sacri- 
fice continually  offered  morning  and  evening.  The  epithet 
"  the  continual,"  (for  it  has  the  article,)  distinguishes  it  from 
the  other  sacrifices,  and  would  naturally  become  the  familiar 
and  elliptical  designation  of  this  chief  rite. 

The  clause,  "  arms  shall  stand  on  his  part,"  means  that 
armed  forces  shall  stand  forth  at  his  command,  shall  be  con- 
stituted by  him  and  sent  forth  to  execute  his  purpose. 

When  Antiochus  entered  Egypt  on  his  last  expedition,  168 
B.  C,  he  marched  direct  to  Alexandria,  the  reduction  of 
which  would  have  made  him  absolute  master  of  the  whole 
kingdom.  But  he  encountered  an  unexpected  obstacle. 
Ptolemy  Euergetes  II,  whom  the  Alexandrians  placed  on  the 
throne,  had  sent  to  Rome  for  aid,  and  the  Senate  decreed  to 
send  an  embassy  of  three  distinguished  individuals,  whose 
commission  was  to  go  to  Antiochus,  and  inform  him  that  if  he 
persisted  in  the  war,  the  Roman  nation  would  thenceforth 
treat  him  as  an  enemy.  They  came  first  to  Brundusium,  a 
seaport  in  the  heel  of  Italy,  thence  sailed  to  the  coast  of  Greece, 
thence  by  way  of  Chalcis,  and  the  islands  Delos  and  Rhodes, 
to  Alexandria.  They  met  Antiochus  four  miles  above  the 
city,  as  he  was  proceeding  to  besiege  it.  Antiochus  recog- 
nized in  Popilius,  one  of  the  ambassadors,  an  acquaintance 
during  his  former  residence  at  Rome,  and  he  extended  his 
hand  to  salute  him.  But  Popilius  declined,  until  he  knew 
whether  Antiochus  were  the  friend  of  Rome,  and  would  com- 
ply with  the  decree  of  the  Senate.  Antiochus  requested  time 
for  deliberation  ;  but  Popilius  drew  with  his  staff  a  circle 
round  him  in  the  sand,  and  demanded  an  answer  before  he 
stepped  out  of  it.  Through  dread  of  the  Roman  power,  he 
answered  affirmatively.  He  immediately  left  Egypt,  and  to 
give  vent  to  his  chagrin  and  rage  at  being  thus  baffled  in  his 
designs,  he  detached  from  his  army,  on  his  return  to  Antioch, 
a  body  of  22,000  soldiers,  under  Apollonius,  one  of  his  gene- 
rals, to  ravage  Jerusalem.      The  particulars  of  Apollonius* 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11*.  30,  31.  41 

attack  are  thus  given  in  the  first  and  second  books  of  the  Mac- 
cabees, 1:  30—40.  5:  25,  26,  — ''  Coming  to  Jerusalem,  and 
pretending  peace,  he  forbore  till  the  holy  day  of  the  sabbath, 
when  taking  the  Jews  keeping  holy  day,  he  commanded  his 
men  to  arm  themselves.  And  so  he  slew  all  them  that  were 
gone  to  the  celebrating  of  the  sabbath,  and  running  through 
the  city  v/ith  weapons  slew  great  multitudes.  And  when  he 
had  taken  the  spoils  of  the  city,  he  set  it  on  fire,  and  pulled 
down  the  houses  and  walls  thereof  on  every  side.  But  the  wo- 
men and  children  took  they  captive,  and  possessed  the  cattle. 
Then  builded  they  the  city  of  David  with  a  great  and  strong 
wall,  with  mighty  towers,  and  made  it  a  strong  hold  for  them, 
and  it  was  a  place  to  lie  in  wait  against  the  sanctuary.  Thus 
they  shed  innocent  blood  on  every  side  of  the  sanctuary  and 
defiled  it :  insomuch  that  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  fled  be- 
cause of  them  :  whereupon  the  city  was  made  an  habitation 
of  strangers,  and  became  strange  to  those  that  were  born  in 
her,  and  her  sanctuary  was  laid  waste  like  a  wilderness." 
From  this  time  forth,  the  daily  sacrifice  ceased. 

These  ravages  were  with  the  concurrence  and  counsel  of 
some  of  the  apostate  Jews.  Josephus  describes  Menelaus  as 
"the  origin  of  all  the  mischief,  by  persuading  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  to  compel  the  Jews  to  leave  the  religion  of  their 
fathers,"  and  adds  that  he  "  had  been  a  wicked  and  impious 
man,  who,  in  order  to  get  the  government  to  himself,  had 
compelled  his  nation  to  transgress  their  own  laws,"  Book  xiK 
ch.  ix.  sec.  vii.  Throughout  these  persecutions,  and  those 
which  followed,  apostate  Jews  entered  into  the  wicked  designs 
of  the  king,  and  delivered  up  such  as  they  could  find  faithful 
to  their  religion.     Comp.  Josephus,  Book  xiii.  ch.  i.  sec.  i. 

There  followed  still  worse  oppressions.  Antiochus  wrote 
to  the  provinces  of  his  kingdom,  that  all  should  leave  their 
own  religious  institutions,  and  conform  to  such  as  he  should 
appoint ;  and  he  sent  officers  to  Jerusalem  and  the  cities  of 
Judea,  to  enforce  his  decree.  "  Then  many  of  the  people 
4* 


42  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  30,  31. 

were  gathered  unto  them,  to  wit,  every  one  that  forsook  the 
law  ;  and  so  they  committed  evils  in  the  land ;  and  drove  the 
Israelites  into  secret  places,  even  wheresoever  they  could  flee 
for  succor.  Now  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month  Casleu 
[about  the  5th  of  Dec],  in  the  hundred  forty  and  fifth  year, 
(i.  e.  of  the  Syrian  epoch,  168  B.  C),  they  set  up  the 
abomination  of  desolation,  dedicated  the  temple  to  Jupiter 
Olympius,  and  builded  idol-altars  throughout  the  cities  of 
Juda  on  every  side ;  and  burnt  incense  at  the  doors  of  their 
houses,  and  in  the  streets.  And  when  they  had  rent  in  pieces 
the  books  of  the  law  which  they  found,  they  burnt  them  with 
fire.  And  whosoever  was  found  with  any  book  of  the  testa- 
ment, or  if  any  consented  to  the  law,  the  king's  command- 
ment was,  that  they  should  put  him  to  death.  Now  the  five 
and  twentieth  day  of  the  month,  they  did  sacrifice  upon  the 
idol-altar,  which  was  upon  the  altar  of  God.  At  which 
time,  according  to  the  commandment,  they  put  to  death  cer- 
tain women,  that  had  caused  their  children  to  be  circum- 
cised. And  they  hanged  the  infants  about  their  necks,  and 
rifled  their  houses,  and  slew  them  that  had  circumcised 
them,"  1  Mace.  1;  52—61.  2  Mace.  6:  1—6.  The  placing 
of  the  idol-altar  on  the  altar  of  God,  and  the  sacrifice  upon  it, 
was  the  profane  act  and  token,  by  which  the  sanctuary  was 
thenceforth  to  be  desolate.  And  shortly,  shrubs  began  to 
grow  in  the  deserted  courts  of  the  Lord,  as  in  a  forest,  I  Mace. 
14:  38.* 

*  Verses  30,  31  have  received  a  most  erroneous  interpretation  firom 
several  recent  writers,  who  calculate  the  end  of  the  world  in  A.  D. 
1843,  The  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice,  they  assert  to  be 
the  abolition  of  the  pagan  sacrifices,  in  the  Roman  empire,  and 
they  assign  this  event  to  A.  D.  508.  But  they  come  down  to  it 
from  their  point  of  departure  in  verses  20,  21  :  and  it  can  need  no 
further  words  to  show,  that  in  that  point  they  made  a  total  mistake, 
and  therefore  have  erred  all  the  way.  The  king  under  whom  the 
daily  sacrifice — the  continual  burnt-offering — was  taken  away,  was, 
as  the  context  shows,  the  same  king  mentioned  in  verse  21 ;  and  that 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  32 35.  43 

32  And  such  as  do  wickedly  against  the  covenant  shall  he  corrupt 
by  flatteries  :  but  the  people  that  do  know  their  God  shall  be  strong, 

33  and  do  exploits.  And  they  that  understand  among  the  people  shall 
instruct  many  :  yet  they  shall  fall  by  the  sword,  and  by  flame,  by 

M  captivity,  and  by  spoil,  many  days.  Now  when  they  shall  fall, 
they  shall  be  holpen  with  a  little  help :  but  many  shall  cleave  to 

35  them  with  flatteries.  And  some  of  them  of  understanding  shall 
fall,  to  try  them,  and  to  purge,  and  to  make  them  white,  even  to 
the  time  of  the  end  :  because  it  is  yet  for  a  time  appointed. 

Events  already  narrated  illustrate  these  verses  in  part. 
Some  others  will  now  be  adduced  from  the  two  histories  of 

king  was  Anliochus  Epiphanes,  to  whom  all  history  assigns  deeds 
that  correspond  precisely  with  the  predictions  in  these  two  verses. 

In  respect  to  a  regular  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  among  the 
heathen — the  continual  burnt-oiTering — the  Bible  nowhere  alludes  to 
such  a  thing,  and  it  applies  the  phrase  "  the  continual  burnt  offering," 
to  no  other  sacrifices  than  were  offered  by  divine  command  on  the 
altar  of  God. 

The  advocates  of  this  interpretation  affirm  that  the  first  clause  of 
verse  30 — "  the  ships  of  Chittim  shall  come  against  him" — denotes 
the  incursions  of  the  Goths  upon  the  Roman  empire.  Now  to  say 
nothing  of  making  the  Romans  synonymous  with  "  king  of  the 
north,"  when  in  fact  the  Romans  were  not  masters  of  Syria,  the 
application  of  Chittim  to  the  Goths  is  manifestly  against  the  ancient 
usage.  For  Chittim  was  applied  to  the  islands  and  coasts  of  the 
Mediterranean,  but  the  Goths  inhabited  northern  and  central  Europe. 
Moreover  they  made  their  incursions  against  Rome  not  in  ships,  but 
by  land. 

The  advocates  of  the  interpretation  abovementioned  also  affirm,  that 
the  phrase  "sanctuary  of  strength"  denotes  the  city  Rome,  and  yet 
they  bring,  and  can  bring,  no  scriptural  authority  whatever  for  such 
an  application.  The  word  "  sanctuary"  primarily  denotes  the  holy 
tabernacle,  or  the  temple  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  figuratively  applied  to 
Jehovah^  Is.  8:  14  ;  to  heaven,  Ps.  102:  19  ;  and  to  Judah,  Ps.  114:  2. 
See  further  on  8:  11—14. 

As  to  the  time  fixed  on  for  the  abolition  of  the  pagan  sacrifices,  viz. 
A.  D.  508,  it  altogether  contradicts  history,  and  is  a  mere  arbitrary 
assumption  without  the  support  of  one  historian  who  assigns  any  im- 
portant event  to  that  year.     Gibbon,  in  his  chapter  on  the  "  Final  De- 


44  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  11:  32 35. 

the  life  and  times  of  the  Maccabees,  in  which  every  specifica- 
tion in  these  verses  has  a  remarkable  fulfihnent.  There  dwelt 
in  the  humble  village  of  Modin,  in  the  tribe  of  Dan,  be- 
tween Jerusalem  and  the  Mediterranean,  a  priest  by  the  name 
of  Mattathias,  who  had  five  sons,  John,  Simon,  Judas  Mac- 
cabeus, Eleazar  and  Jonathan.  To  this  village  the  king's  offi- 
cers came  to  carry  into  effect  the  recent  decree.  They  address- 
ed Mattathias  in  language  which  furnishes  an  instance  of  the 
"  flatteries"  used  to  "  corrupt"  the  Jews,  and  which,  as  we 

struction  of  Paganism,"  says,  that  the  emperor  "Theodosius  attacked 
superstition  in  her  most  vital  part  by  prohibiting  the  use  of  sacrifices. 
The  temples  of  the  Roman  empire  [A.  D.  390]  were  deserted  or  de- 
stroyed ;  but  the  ingenious  superstition  of  the  Pagans  still  attempted 
to  elude  the  laws  of  Theodosius,  by  which  all  sacrifices  had  been  se- 
verely prohibited.  The  inhabitants  of  the  country  disguised  their 
religious,  under  the  appearance  of  convivial,  meetings.  These  vain 
pretences  were  swept  away  by  the  last  edict  of  Theodosius  [A.  D. 
392]  ;  which  inflicted  a  deadly  wound  on  the  superstition  of  the  Pa- 
gans. And  so  rapid,  yet  so  gentle,  was  the  fall  of  paganism,  that 
only  twenty-eight  years  after  the  death  of  Theodosius,  [he  died  A. 
D.  395,]  the  faint  and  minute  vestiges  were  no  longer  visible  to  the 
eye  of  the  legislator;"  Vol.  11.  pp.  183 — 194.  Comp.  Milman's  note 
to  p.  187  ;  also  Gieseler's  Church  History,  Vol.  I.  pp.  180—190.  It 
is  true  indeed  that  notwithstanding  the  edicts  of  Theodosius,  all  idol- 
atrous worship  was  not  rooted  out;  but  the  public  heathen  sacrifices 
were  utterly  taken  away,  and  the  fatal  blow  had  been  given  to  Pagan- 
ism itself,  which,  after  lingering  many  years,  finally  died  out  of  the 
empire,  about  A.  D.  600.  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  those  who  cal- 
culate the  end  of  the  world  in  1843,  fix  on  the  year  1798  as  the  date 
when  Papacy  was  virtually  ended,  though  it  still  lingers.  So,  to  be 
consistent,  must  they  assent  to  the  year  392,  as  the  date  when  the 
heathen  sacrifices  were  actually  abolished,  and  pagan  worship  virtu- 
ally ended,  though  it  lingered  some  years  longer.  The  assertion  in 
the  prophet,  "  shall  take  away  the  daily  sacrifice,"  leaves  them  indeed 
no  alternative  but  to  fix  on  the  year  423  (395-f-28),  as  the  furthest 
possible  period  for  the  abolition  of  the  pagan  sacrifice,  if  they  will 
have  that  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  phrase ;  and  they  must  change 
their  mode  of  reckoning,  or  insist  upon  it  that  the  world  came  to  an 
end  some  hundred  years  ago. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  32 35.  45 

have  already  seen,  influenced  many  to  abandon  their  religion. 
''  Thou  art  a  ruler,"  said  they,  "  and  an  honorable  and  great 
man  in  this  city,  and  strengthened  with  sons  and  brethren. 
Now  therefore  come  thou  first,  and  ftilfil  the  king's  com- 
mandment, like  as  all  the  heathen  have  done,  yea  and  the 
men  of  Juda  also,  and  such  as  remain  at  Jerusalem ;  so  shall 
thou  and  thy  house  be  in  the  number  of  the  king's  friends, 
and  thou  and  thy  children  shall  be  honored  with  silver  and 
gold,  and  many  rewards."  In  his  case  they  were  unsuccess- 
ful ;  and  in  the  answer  he  returned,  and  his  subsequent  deeds, 
and  the  deeds  of  his  sons,  and  of  his  sons'  followers,  we  have 
a  fulfilment  of  what  is  asserted  in  these  verses.  "  Though 
all  the  nations,"  Mattathias  answered  with  a  loud  voice, 
"  though  all  the  nations  that  are  under  the  king's  dominion 
obey  him,  and  fall  away  every  one  from  the  religion  of  their 
fathers,  yet  will  I,  and  my  sons,  and  my  brethren,  walk  in 
the  covenant  of  our  fathers.  We  will  not  hearken  to  the 
king's  words,  to  go  from  our  religion,  either  on  the  right 
hand  or  the  left."  When  one  of  the  Jews  came  forward,  in- 
duced by  the  king's  flatteries,  to  sacrifice  on  the  idol-altar, 
Mattathias  rushed  on  him,  and  slew  him,  and  the  king's  com- 
missioner with  him,  and  pulled  down  the  altar,  and  crying 
with  a  loud  voice  through  the  city,  "  Whosoever  is  zealous 
of  the  law,  and  maintaineth  the  covenant,  let  him  follow  me," 
he  and  his  sons  fled  into  the  mountains.  Thit  was  the  rally- 
ing cry,  which  called  together  '*  all  such  as  were  voluntarily 
devoted  to  the  law,"  and  "  all  they  that  fled  for  persecution." 
Having  "  joined  their  forces,  they  went  round  about,  and  pull- 
ed down  the  altars,  and  what  children  soever  they  found  with- 
in the  coast  of  Israel  uncircumcised,  those  they  circumcised 
valiantly,  and  they  recovered  the  law  out  of  the  hand  of  the 
Gentiles."  Mattathias,  old  in  years,  but  young  in  valor  and 
hope,  died,  having  first  charged  his  sons, — "Be  ye  zealous 
for  the  law,  and  give  your  lives  for  the  covenant  of  your 
fathers."     "  In  his  stead  rose  up  Judas,  called  Maccabeus, 


46  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  32 35. 

whom  his  father  Mattathias  had  also  named  as  his  successor. 
"  He  was  mighty  and  strong  even  from  his  youth  up.  He 
put  on  a  breastplate  as  a  giant,  and  girt  his  warlike  harness 
about  him,  and  made  battles,  protecting  the  host  with  his 
sword.  In  his  acts  he  was  like  a  lion,  and  like  a  lion's  whelp 
roaring  for  his  prey.  For  he  pursued  the  wicked,  and  con- 
sumed those  that  vexed  his  people,  and  salvation  prospered 
in  his  hand."  With  a  band  so  small  in  comparison  with  the 
enemy,  that  they  asked,  on  the  enemy's  approach,  *'  How 
shall  we  be  able,  being  so  few,  to  fight  against  so  great  a 
multitude  and  so  strong,"  they  waged  four  signal  battles,  in 
which  they  defeated  and  routed  the  enemy.  The  first  was 
against  Apollonius,  the  governor  of  Samaria,  (the  same  whom 
Antiochus  had  detached  to  ravage  Jerusalem  and  take  away 
the  daily  sacrifice,)  who  came  upon  Judas  and  his  band  with 
a  large  army,  but  was  defeated  and  himself  slain;  whose 
"  sword  also  Judas  took,  and  therewith  he  fought  all  his  life 
long."  Next,  Seron,  lieutenant  of  Coele-Syria,  came  against 
Judas,  and  a  second  time  the  Jews  were  successful.  At  this, 
Antiochus  was  so  vexed,  that  he  "  gathered  together  all  the 
forces  of  his  realm,"  to  crush  at  once  the  rising  Jews;  but 
being,  at  this  moment  imperatively  obliged  to  go  in  another 
direction,  (as  will  be  hereafter  related,  v.  44,)  he  thereupon 
took  half  his  forces  with  him,  and  committed  the  other  half 
to  Lysias,  a  prince  royal,  with  orders  to  proceed  at  once  to 
Jerusalem.  Lysias,  occupied  in  affairs  of  state,  committed 
the  army  to  Nicanor  and  Gorgias,  distinguished  and  expe- 
rienced men,  who  accordingly  went  forth ;  Nicanor,  in  his 
confidence  of  success,  proclaiming  that  he  would  sell  Jews 
at  the  rate  of  ninety  for  a  talent,  and  lending  after  him  mer- 
chants to  buy  them.  And  yet  with  such  a  host  they  did  not 
encounter  Judas  in  open  battle;  but  a  detachment  of  5000 
was  sent  under  Gorgias,  to  surprise  and  cut  off  Judas  by 
night.  Judas  heard  of  it,  and  counter-marched  to  surprise 
the  main  body  of  Nicanor.     He  came  upon  them  at  early 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  32 35.  47 

dawn,  with  his  band  then  numbering  only  3000  against  35,000, 
and  totally  routed  them,  and  slew  3000 — each  brave  Israelite 
his  man.  The  detachment  returning,  and  perceiving  the  re- 
sult, which  the  tents  beginning  to  be  set  on  fire  plainly  de- 
clared, they  also  fled.  At  intelligence  of  this,  "Lysias,  con- 
founded and  discouraged,  gathered  together,  the  next  year 
following,  (165  B.  C.)  60,000  choice  men  of  foot  and  5,000 
horsemen.  So  they  came  into  Idumea,  and  pitched  their 
tents  at  Bethsura,  and  Judas  met  them  with  10,000  men." 
The  enemy  were  again  totally  defeated,  and  5,000  of  their 
number  slain.  "  Then  said  Judas  and  his  brethren.  Behold, 
our  enemies  are  discomfited :  let  us  go  up  to  cleanse  and 
dedicate  the  sanctuary.  Upon  this,  all  the  host  assembled 
themselves  together,  and  went  up  into  mount  Sion.  And 
when  they  saw  the  sanctuary  desolate,  and  the  altar  profaned, 
and  the  gates  burned  up,  and  shrubs  growing  in  the  courts 
as  in  a  forest,  or  in  one  of  the  mountains,  they  rent  their 
clothes,  and  made  great  lamentation,  and  cast  ashes  upon 
their  heads."  There  were  soldiers  yet  in  the  fortress  to  hin- 
der any  from  going  to  worship  in  the  sanctuary.  '*  Then  Ju- 
das appointed  certain  men  to  fight  against  those  in  the  for- 
tress, until  he  had  cleansed  the  sanctuary.  So  he  chose 
priests  of  blameless  conversation,  such  as  had  pleasure  in  the 
law :  who  cleansed  the  sanctuary,  and  bear  out  the  defiled 
stones,  and  built  a  new  altar  of  burnt-offering,  and  hallowed 
the  courts,  and  made  new  holy  vessels — the  candlestick,  the 
altar  of  incense,  and  the  table  of  shew-bread ;  and  upon  the 
altar  they  burned  incense,  and  the  lamps  that  were  upon  the 
candlestick  they  lighted,  and  set  the  loaves  upon  the  table, 
and  spread  out  the  vails."  Having  completed  the  whole, 
"  they  rose  up  early  on  the  morning  of  the  25th  day  of  their 
9th  month  Casleu,  (about  the  15th  of  Dec.)  in  the  148th 
year  of  the  epoch  of  Syria,  (165  B.  C.)  and  offered  sacrifice 
according  to  the  law  upon  the  new  altar  of  burnt  offerings." 
Then  was  the  daily  sacrifice,  which  had  been  taken  away 


48  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  ^2 35. 

restored.  On  that  same  day  was  the  temple  **  dedicated  with 
songs,  and  citherns,  and  harps,  and  cymbaJs,  and  all  the  peo- 
ple fell  upon  their  faces,  worshipping  and  praising  the  God  of 
heaven,  who  had  given  them  good  success.  They  kept  the 
dedication  of  the  altar  eight  days,  and  sacrificed  the  sacrifice 
of  deliverance  and  praise ;  they  also  decked  the  fore  front  of 
the  temple  with  crornis  of  gold,  and  with  shields,  and  the 
gates  and  chambers  they  renewed,  and  hanged  doors  upon 
them."  This  feast  of  dedication  was  made  thenceforth  an 
annual  festival  to  be  celebrated  eight  days.  It  was  observed 
even  down  to  our  Savior's  time,  and  he  attended  its  cele- 
bration, John  10:  22.  It  is  called  by  Jcsephus,  the  Feast  cf 
Lights,  because  the  city  was  illuminated  as  expressive  of  the 
pe<^le's  joy,  Antiq.  B.  xii.  c.  11.  At  the  same  time  when 
they  had  purified  the  sanctuary  and  renewed  the  daily  sacrifice, 
they  also  "  builded  up  the  mount  Sion  with  high  walls  and 
strong  towers  round  about,  lest  the  Gentiles  should  come  and 
tread  it  down,  as  they  had  done  before."* 

There  were  many  other  instances  of  individual  godly  men 
and  women,  whose  sufferings  and  heroic  constancy  further 
illustrate  this  prophecy.  They  were  among  the  wise  who  in- 
structed many.  No  threats  nor  promises  could  induce  them 
to  forsake  the  religion  of  their  fathers,  no  tortures  intimidate 
them ;  but  they  met  death  courageously  and  cheerfully,  in 
its  most  appalling  forms.  There  was  an  aged  man  named 
Elleazer,  a  chief  scribe,  whom  the  king's  officers  had  tried 
in  vain  with  persuasions  to  eat  swine's  flesh  offered  in  sacri- 
fice on  one  of  the  pagan  altars.  They  then  forced  a  piece 
into  his  mouth,  but  he  spat  it  out  again ;  and  on  being  urged 
to  partake  secretly  of  meat  of  his  own  providing,  and  appear 
as  though  he  ate  swine's  flesh,  that  he  might  thus  escape  the 
violent  death  his  refusal  would  inevitably  bring  on  him,  he 
nobly  replied,  "  It  becometh  not  our  age  in  any  wise  to  dis- 
semble, whereby  many  young  persons  might  think  that  Elea- 

•  For  all  these  quotations,  see  1  Mace,  chaps.  2 — 4. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  ^,    ,    _, 

zer,  being  fourscore  years  old  and  ten,  were  n^T^.gSne  to 
a  strange  religion  ;  and  so  they,  through  mine  hx-pocrisy,  and 
desire  to  live  a  little  time  and  a  moment  longer,  should  be 
deceived  by  me,  and  I  get  a  stain  to  mine  old  age,  and  make 
it  abominable.  For  though  for  the  present  time  I  should  be 
delivered  from  the  punishment  of  men,  yet  should  I  not  es- 
cape the  hand  of  the  Almighty,  neither  alive  nor  dead. 
Wherefore  now  manfully  changing  this  life,  I  will  shew  my- 
self such  an  one  as  mine  age  requireth,  and  leave  a  notable 
example  to  such  as  be  young,  to  die  willingly  and  coura- 
geously for  the  honorable  and  holy  laws."  When  he  had  thus 
spoken,  he  went  voluntarily  to  the  place  of  torture ;  and  be- 
ing just  ready  to  expire  under  the  stripes  inflicted,  he  groan- 
ed and  said,  "  It  is  manifest  unto  the  Lord,  that  hath  the  ho- 
ly knowledge,  that  whereas  I  might  have  been  delivered  from 
death,  I  now  endure  sore  pains  in  body  by  being  beaten  ;  but 
in  soul  am  well  content  to  suffer  these  things,  because  I  fear 
him."  Thus  he  died,  "  leaving  his  death  for  an  example  of 
a  noble  courage,  and  a  memorial  of  virtue,  not  only  unto 
young  men,  but  unto  all  his  nation."* 

Another  instance  was  that  of  the  torture  of  seven  brothers 
with  their  mother,  before  king  Antiochus  himself,  whose 
presence  at  Jerusalem  was  probably  occasioned  by  intelli- 
gence of  the  constancy  of  the  Jews ;  and  this  he  was  deter- 
mined to  break  by  the  most  violent  measures.  The  eldest  of 
these  brothers,  who  was  the  first  to  speak,  exclaimed — '*  What 
wouldest  thou  ask  or  learn  of  us  ?  We  are  ready  to  die,  rather 
than  to  transgress  the  laws  of  our  fathers."  Antiochus  in  a 
rage,  and  to  make  him  such  an  example  of  severity  as  he 
supposed  would  at  once  subdue  the  others,  commanded  a 
cauldron  to  be  made  red  hot,  into  which  he  threw  him  yet 
alive,  having  first  cut  off  the  hands  and  feet  and  tongue  of 
his  victim,  the  other  brethren  and  the  mother  looking  on; 
"  and  as  the  vapor  of  the  pan  was  for  a  good  space  dispersed, 

*  2  Maccabees,  ch.  vi. 
5 


50  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  I  J:  32 35. 

they  exhorted  one  another  with  the  mother  to  die  manfully." 
They  then  seized  the  second,  with  a  savage  violence  that 
"  pulled  off  the  skin  of  his  head  with  the  hair,"  and  asked, 
"  Wilt  thou  eat,  before  thou  be  punished  throughout  every 
member  of  thy  body  ?"  And  on  his  answering  "  No,"  he  was 
made  to  undergo  the  same  torture  with  his  brother  ;  and  with 
his  expiring  breath  he  said,  "  Thou  like  a  fury  takest  us  out 
of  the  present  life,  but  the  King  of  the  world  shall  raise  us  up, 
who  have  died  for  his  laws,  unto  everlasting  life."  After 
him  the  third  came  forward,  and  "  putting  out  his  tongue  and 
holding  forth  his  hands,  as  required,  he  said  courageously, 
These  I  had  from  heaven  ;  and  for  his  laws  I  despise  them ; 
and  from  him  I  hope  to  receive  them  again.  Insomuch  that 
the  king,  and  they  that  were  with  him,  marvelled  at  the 
young  man's  courage  and  that  he  nothing  regarded  the  pains." 
Next  came  the  fourth,  whom  "  they  tormented  and  mangled 
in  like  manner,"  and  who,  when  he  was  about  to  die,  spake 
to  the  king, — '*  It  is  good,  being  put  to  death  by  men,  to  look 
for  hope  from  God  to  be  raised  up  again  by  him  :  as  for  thee, 
thou  shalt  have  no  resurrection  to  life."  And  thus  on  to  the 
seventh,  the  youngest,  whom  the  king,  wishing  to  redeem 
himself  from  the  disgrace  of  a  total  failure,  endeavored  to 
corrupt  by  flatteries,  and  "  also  assured  him  with  oaths,  that 
he  would  make  him  both  a  rich  and  a  happy  man,  if  he  would 
turn  from  the  laws  of  his  fathers  ;  and  that  also  he  would  take 
him  for  his  friend,  and  trust  him  with  affairs.  But  when  the 
young  man  would  in  no  case  hearken  unto  him,  the  king  call- 
ed his  mother  and  exhorted  her  that  she  would  counsel  the 
young  man  to  save  his  life."  ^he  promised  him  that  she 
would  counsel  her  son.  She  had  already  counseled  them 
all,  she  had  "  exhorted  every  one  of  them  in  her  own  lan- 
guage, filled  with  courageous  spirits, — I  neither  gave  you 
breath  nor  life,  neither  was  it  I  that  formed  the  members  of 
every  one  of  you  ;  but  doubtless  the  Creator  of  the  world, 
who  formed  the  generation  of  man,  and  found  out  the  begin- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  32 35.  51 

ning  of  all  things,  will  also  of  his  own  mercy  give  you  breath 
and  life  again,  as  ye  now  regard  not  your  own  selves  for  his 
laws'  sake."  Then  "  bowing  herself  toward  the  king,  and 
laughing  the  cruel  tyrant  to  scorn,"  she  addressed  her  young- 
est son  "  in  her  country  language  in  this  manner  :  I  beseech 
thee,  my  son,  look  upon  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  and  all 
that  is  therein,  and  consider  that  God  made  them  of  things 
that  were  not ;  and  so  was  mankind  made  likewise.  Fear 
not  this  tormentor,  but  being  worthy  of  thy  brethren,  take 
thy  death,  that  I  may  receive  thee  again  in  mercy  with  thy 
brethren."  While  the  mother  was  yet  speaking  these  words, 
the  young  man  said,  "  Whom  wait  ye  for  1  T  will  not  obey 
the  king's  commandment ;  but  I  will  obey  the  commandment 
of  the  law  that  was  given  unto  our  fathers  by  Moses.  And 
thou,  that  hast  been  the  author  of  all  mischief  against  the  He- 
brews, shall  not  escape  the  hands  of  God.  For  our  breth- 
ren, who  have  now  suffered  a  short  pain,  are  dead  under 
God's  covenant  of  everlasting  life;  but  thou,  through  the 
judgment  of  God,  shalt  receive  just  punishment  for  thy  pride. 
But  I,  as  my  brethren,  offer  up  my  body  and  life  for  the  laws 
of  our  fathers,  beseeching  God  that  he  would  speedily  be  mer- 
ciful unto  our  nation  ;  and  that  thou  by  torments  and  plagues 
mayest  confess,  that  he  alone  is  God.  Then  the  king,  be- 
ing in  a  rage,  handled  him  worse  than  all  the  rest,  and  took 
it  grievously  that  he  was  laughed  to  scorn.  So  this  man  di- 
ed undefiled,  and  put  his  whole  trust  in  the  Lord.  Last  of 
all,  after  the  son,  the  mother  died."* 

While  these  transactions  took  place  in  Jerusalem,  the  Jews 
suffered  much  out  of  it.  Their  trials  did  not  end  with  the 
splendid  victories  of  Judas  already  related,  and  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  sanctuary.  That  very  purification  displeased  the 
heathen  round  about ;  and  making  common  cause  with  Anti- 
ochus,  they  resolved  "  to  destroy  the  generation  of  Jacob," 
and  accordingly  began  the  work.  The  men  in  many  places 
*  2  Maccabees,  cb.  vii. 


52  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  32 35. 

were  slain  by  the  thousand,  their  property  borne  away, 
their  wives  and  children  sold  into  captivity.  In  Gilead  and 
Galilee  they  were  in  the  greatest  peril,  besieged  in  their  ci- 
ties, and  would  have  perished  but  for  the  timely  aid  of  Judas 
in  the  former,  (to  whom  they  in  their  extremity  sent,)  and  of 
Judas'  brother  Simon  in  the  latter  ;  who  routed  the  enemy, 
rescued  many  that  were  already  taken  and  reserved  for  a 
dreadful  death,  and  brought  the  survivors  into  Judea,  a  place 
of  greater  safety  for  them.  In  the  absence  of  Judas,  a  band  of 
Jews  sallied  forth  from  Jerusalem,  thinking  to  do  some  valiant 
act,  but  it  was  unadvisedly,  and  against  the  directions  of  Ju- 
das; and  2,000  of  them  perished.*  Thus  while  the  children 
of  Israel  were  falling  "  by  the  sword,  and  by  flame,  by  captiv- 
ity and  by  spoil,  many  days,"  they  received  help.  But  as  yet, 
it  was  comparatively  "  little  help."  They  were  still  exposed 
to  the  attacks  of  a  strong  and  numerous  army.  There  was 
yet,  even  in  the  city  itself,  in  the  fortress  on  Mount  Zion, 
the  Syrian  garrison  of  soldiers,  who  constantly  annoyed  the 
people,  and  often  slew  them.  There  were  apostate  Jews  who 
hastened  to  the  court  of  Antioch,  and  earnestly  urged  more 
decisive  measures  against  the  growing  power  and  success  of 
Judas.  It  added  to  their  troubles  that  many  joined  the  band 
of  Judas,  with  only  flattering  words — with  insincere  profes- 
sions of  loyalty,  and  perhaps  some  with  intentions  to  betray 
the  cause  they  espoused.  It  is  mentioned  that  after  Judas 
had  fought  two  battles  victoriously,  and  was  about  to  attack 
the  host  of  Nicanor,  '*  they  that  were  fearful  and  distrusted 
the  justice  of  God,  fled,  and  conveyed  themselves  away,"  2 
Mace.  8:  13.  There  were  those  also  who  are  spoken  of  as 
having  *'  revolted  from  him,"  1  Mace.  7:  24. 

These  severe  trials  into  which  the  godly  of  the  nation  fell, 
and  through  which  all  who  were  spared  suffered  everything 
but  death  itself,  were  ordained  for  a  season  as  the  trials  of 
their  faith,  which  would  at  last  be  found  unto  praise,  and 

*  For  these  instances,  see  1  Mace.  ch.  v. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  36.  53 

honor,  and  glory,  Comp.  1  Peter  1:  6,  7.  An  end  should 
come  to  their  calamities.  There  was  a  time  set  for  it,  and 
it  should  now  begin  to  be  hastened  by  the  removal  of  that 
king,  under  whose  despotic  power  they  had  been  compelled 
thus  to  suffer.* 

'rid  And  the  king  shall  do  according  to  his  will ;  and  he  shall  exalt 
himself,  and  magnify  himself  above  every  god,  and  shall  speak 
marvellous  things  against  the  God  of  gods;  and  shall  prosper  till 
the  indignation  be  accomplished  :  for  that  that  is  determined  shall 
be  done. 


^  Verses  31 — 35  have  the  sanction  of  so  high  an  authority  as  Sir 
Isaac  Nev/ton  for  their  application  to  the  Roman  empire.  The  par- 
ticular reason  assigned  by  him,  and  by  Bishop  Newton  who  follows 
him,  is,  the  difficulty,  or  rather  the  impossibility,  of  their  application 
to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ;  and  among  the  chief  instances  cited,  are 
the  declarations,  "  they  that  understand  among  the  people  shall  in- 
struct many,"  and  "  they  shall  be  holpen  with  a  little  help."  But  in 
the  light  of  the  facts  presented,  such  a  reason  is  seen  to  be  without 
just  foundation,  and  those  very  instances  to  have  a  most  adequate  and 
proper  parallel  in  events  in  the  times  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Sir 
Isaac's  mode  of  interpretation  is  as* follows: — The  phrase  translated 
"on  his  part,"  he  says  may  signify  after  him;  and  he  adduces  the 
phrase  in  11:  8,  translated  "  more  years  than,"  which  he  says  signifies 
some  years  after  the  king,  etc.  The  word  "  arms,"  which  means  the 
military  power  of  a  kingdom,  he  says  here  denotes  the  Roman  Empire  ; 
and  the  clause  reads  thus :  "  And  after  him  arms,  (i.  e.  the  Romans,) 
shall  stand  up." 

Now  it  is  true  that  the  preposition  found  in  the  phrase  "  on  his 
part,"  does  sometimes  mean  "  after,"  but  its  meaning  is  always  deter- 
mined by  the  context.  In  11:  8,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  far  from  re- 
quiring such  a  signification.  In  verse  31 ,  the  whole  context  is  against 
it.  (See  the  interpretation  of  verse  36.)  In  regard  to  the  phrase 
"  arms,"  it  is  found  in  this  chapter  in  connexion  with  the  king  or  em- 
pire that  employs  them^  (see  verse  15,)  and  therefore  is  not  taken  as 
the  empire  itself.  It  is  the  arms  which  a  king  or  nation  uses  for  at- 
tack or  defence,  and  in  verse  31,  manifestly  belong  to  the  king  already 
spoken  of,  and  again  mentioned  in  the  phrase  "on  his  part,"  or  "at 
his  command,"  the  pronoun  being  used  instead  of  the  noun. 
5* 


54  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  36. 

The  angel  here  resumes  the  description  of  the  personal  ex- 
ploits and  character  of  the  king,  from  which  he  had  digressed 
to  speak  of  the  victims  of  his  power.  Some  expositors  apply 
vs.  36 — 39,  to  Papal  Rome,  and  the  remainder  of  the  chap- 
ter to  the  Ottoman  empire.  Others  apply  vs.  31 — 35,  to  Papal 
Rome,  and  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  to  Napoleon  Bona- 
parte. But  if  we  are  ever  to  obey  the  laws  of  language,  and 
to  be  guided  by  the  context,  we  are  directed  here,  most  ex- 
plicitly, to  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  "  The  king"  has  the  defi- 
nite article,  which  is  never  put  in  the  Hebrew  for  the  indefi- 
nite, but  always  marks  some  person  or  thing  definite  at  least 
to  the  mind  of  the  writer ;  and  in  such  a  context  as  this  di- 
rects attention  to  what  has  already  been  made  the  subject  of 
discourse.  (2)  In  respect  to  the  kings  mentioned  in  this 
chapter,  something  is  told  of  the  termination  of  their  reign  ; 
but  unless  the  history  of  the  king  given  in  vs.  21 — 32,  is  re- 
sumed, it  is  left  in  the  midst.  The  end  of  his  predecessor  is 
given,  and  the  end  of  the  one  before  that;  but  no  end  of  the 
king,  whose  history  is  commenced  in  verse  21,  occurs  until 
the  close  of  the  chapter.  It  must  therefore  be  the  history  of 
one  and  ihe  same  king.  (3)  Up  to  verse  36,  the  reader  is 
brought  no  further  down  than  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes. Every  one  must  feel  the  unexampled  transition  from 
the  king  of  Syria  to  the  Pope  of  Rome,  or  to  Napoleon  Bo- 
naparte. From  a  temporal  reign  long  before  Christ,  to  the 
reign  of  Christ,  there  are  indeed  frequent  instances  of  sudden 
transition,  in  the  prophets,  but  not  from  one  temporal  reign 
in  one  country,  to  another  in  a  distant  country,  with  nothing 
to  prepare  the  reader  for  the  transition.  From  verse  2  to 
verse  3,  in  this  chapter,  there  is  an  interval  of  more  than  a 
hundred  years,  but  the  absence  of  the  article  from  the  phrase 
"  mighty  king,"  and  the  specification  of  circumstances,  leave 
no  one  in  doubt  whom  the  prophecy  means.  If,  however, 
there  should  be  something  in  the  language  of  verses  36 — 45, 
making  it  impossible  to  apply  it  to  the  king,  whose  history  is 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  37 39.  55 

given  in  the  verses  preceding,  then  it  cannot  be  so  applied. 
But  if  there  is  nothing,  then  all  usage  and  authority  require 
us  to  apply  it  to  him.  If  the  language  is  remarkably  descrip- 
tive of  him,  then  it  is  a  confirmation  that  he  alone  is  meant. 
No  one  acquainted  with  the  history  whether  of  the  Pope,  or 
of  the  Ottoman  empire,  or  of  Bonaparte,  will  fail  to  perceive 
that  to  neither  of  them  does  the  language  so  literally  apply  as 
to  Antiochus,  nor  can  be  applied  to  them  throughout  except 
by  transcending  historical  truth. 

The  prophecy  now  proceeds  to  set  forth  the  character  of 
Antiochus  in  a  more  particular  aud  comprehensive  manner. 
The  character  given  of  him  in  this  verse  36,  has  already  been 
illustrated  in  the  notes  to  the  verses  preceding.  That  he  lit- 
erally spake  impious  words  against  the  god  of  heaven,  is  con- 
firmedby  the  appellation  of  "  blasphemer"  given  him  in  2 
Mace.  9:  28.  It  is  remarked  also  in  1  Mace.  1:  24,  on  the 
occasion  of  the  sedition  of  the  deposed  Jason,  and  the  sub- 
sequent march  of  Antiochus  to  the  city,  that  "  when  he  had 
taken  all  away,  he  went  into  his  own  land,  having  spoken 
very  proudly."  The  prediction,  "shall  magnify  himself  above 
every  god,"  had  its  accomplishment  in  his  abolishing  the  re- 
ligious worship  of  whatever  Deity  he  saw  fit,  whether  of  the 
Jews  or  of  others,  and  in  his  setting  up  the  worship  of  whom 
he  chose.  In  his  disposal  of  the  Deities  to  be  worshipped,  he 
magnified  himself  above  them  all,  as  his  inferiors.  This  verse 
therefore  has  its  full  accomplishment  in  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  though  some  profess  to  make  the  language  a  reason 
for  not  applying  it  to  him. 

37  Neither  shall  he  regard  the  God  of  his  fathers,  nor  the  desire  of 
women,  nor  regard  any  god  :  for  he  shall  magnify  himself  above 

38  all.  But  in  his  estate  shall  he  honor  the  God  of  forces  :  and  a  god 
whom  his  fathers  knew  not  shall  he  honor  with  gold,  and  silver, 

39  and  with  precious  stones,  and  pleasant  things.  Thus  shall  he  do 
in  the  most  strong  holds  with  a  strange  god,  whom  he  shall  ac- 
knowledge and  increase  with  glory :  and  he  shall  cause  them  to 
rule  over  many,  and  shall  divide  the  land  for  gain. 


56  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  37 39. 

By  "  the  desire  of  women,"  is  not  meant  licentious  plea- 
sures,— an  interpretation  which  some  have  given,  and  found 
in  it  a  reason  for  not  applying  it  to  one  so  infamously  licen- 
tious as  Antiochus  Epiphanes;  but  it  means  the  delight  of 
women,  (its  frequent  signification,)  i.  e.  the  object  in  which 
they  delighted,  viz.  their  idols  Astarte  and  Anaitis,  which 
were  assiduously  worshipped  by  the  women  of  Syria.  The 
position  of  this  phrase  in  the  sentence,  demands  such  an  in- 
terpretation, and  the  original  sanctions  it.  Compare  also  the 
explanation  of  the  word  '*  princes,"  in  verse  8.  These  idols, 
together  with  those  worshipped  from  ancient  times  by  the 
men  of  Syria  and  the  East,  and  honored  by  his  fathers,  he 
set  aside  for  the  introduction  of  the  gods  worshipped  in  Greece, 
particularly  Jupiter  Olympius,  and  Hercules,  who  is  well  de- 
noted by  the  phrase  "  god  of  forces,"  i.  e.  the  god  of  strong 
holds,  (for  the  word  translated  "  forces  "  is  the  same  word 
with  that  translated  in  verses  7,  10,  etc.  as  ^^  fortress,''''  only 
one  is  in  the  plural  and  the  others  are  in  the  singular.)  Her- 
cules is  the  god  whom,  as  we  have  seen,  he  honored  in  the 
games  celebrated  at  Tyre.  That  Hercules  was  this  "  god  of 
strong-holds,"  is  the  more  probable  from  the  fact,  that  the 
Grecian  Hercules  was  of  Phenician  origin,  and  those  cities 
of  Greece  which  were  originally  Phenician  colonies,  celebra- 
ted feasts  in  honor  of  him,  and  sang  his  exploits,  (See  Article 
on  Hercules  in  American  Encyclopedia.)  In  Tyre  therefore, 
which  belonged  to  Phenicia,  Antiochus  doubtless  found  the 
worship  of  Hercules  already  existing ;  a  worship  remarkably 
fitted  to  suit  such  a  person  as  Antiochus,  and  it  was  also 
Greek.  Hercules  is  represented  as  brawny  and  muscular, 
with  small  head  and  spirited  face,  short  thick  neck,  high 
chest,  strong  and  brawny  shoulders,  with  a  lion's  skin  and  a 
club. 

"  In  his  estate,"  does  not  denote  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus, 
but  in  the  stead  of  the  god  of  his  fathers ;  or  the  pronoun  may 
be  rendered  their,  and  refer  to  the  gods  of  his  country  in 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  40,  41.  57 

general.     "  Pleasant  things,"  are  any  costly,  beautiful  offer- 
ings whatsoever. 

Verse  39,  commencing  with  the  second  clause,  may  lite- 
rally read  as  follows — Whosoever  acknowledges  him  [i.  e. 
*'  the  god  of  strong  holds,"]  he  will  increase  with  honor,  and 
cause  them  to  have  dominion  over  many,  and  distribute  the 
land  [among  them]  for  [their]  reward.  The  disposition  to 
honor  and  reward  such  as  complied  with  his  humor,  has  al- 
ready been  sufficiently  noticed.  Antiochus,  however,  did  not 
himself  care  for  any  god,  (see  verse  37,)  but  as  law-giver  and 
religion-giver,  he  would  pull  down  and  build  up  as  he  chose. 
The  first  clause  of  verse  39  seems  to  imply  that  Antiochus 
introduced  the  worship  of  Hercules,  (the  god  whom  his 
fathers  acknowledged  not,)  into  all  the  fortified  places  of 
Syria. 

40  And  at  the  time  of  the  end  shall  the  king  of  the  south  push  at 
him  :  [viz.  at  "  the  king,"  i.  e.  of  the  north  :]  and  the  king  of  the 
north  shall  come  against  him  [viz.  the  king  of  the  south]  like  a 
whirlwind,  with  chariots,  and  with  horsemen,  and  with  many  ships ; 
and  he  shall  enter  into  the  countries,  and  shall  overflow,  and  pass 
over. 

The  angel  now  coming  to  the  downfall  of  the  Syrian,  re- 
capitulates and  sums  up  the  events  immediately  preceding  it, 
with  the  addition  of  a  few  particulars.  As  we  have  already 
seen  under  verse  27,  the  young  king  of  the  south,  Ptolemy 
VI,  Philometer,  had  roused  himself  from  his  effeminacy,  and 
adopted  measures  to  repel  Antiochus ;  and  Antiochus  had 
rushed  again  into  Egypt  with  greater  fury.  See  verse  29. 
While  hastening  to  Alexandria  against  the  two  Ptolemies,  he 
sent  also  a  fleet  to  Cyprus,  to  secure  that  island  as  the  key 
to  Egypt. 

41  He  shall  also  enter  into  the  glorious  land,  and  many  countries 
shall  be  overthrown:  biiit  these  shall  escape  out  of  his  hand,  ercw 
Edora,  and  Moab,  and  the  chief  of  the  children  of  Ammon. 


58  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  42,  43. 

His  invasion  of  Palestine  subsequently  to  his  repulse  in 
Egypt,  has  been  already  noticed  in  verses  30 — 39.  The 
vv^ord  rendered  "  countries,''^  though  not  in  the  original,  is 
probably  implied,  as  the  adjective  is  feminine.  While  he 
ravaged  almost  every  country  in  and  around  Palestine,  history 
mentions  no  invasion  and  spoil  of  Moab,  Edom,  and  the  chief 
places  of  the  Ammonites.  An  ancient  commentor,  Theodo- 
ret,  who  applies  this  passage  to  Antichrist,  does  indeed  assert, 
that  Antiochus  "  having  overthrown  these  nations,  constitu- 
ted rulers  over  them,  one  of  whom  was  Timotheus  the  com- 
mander of  the  Ammonites."  But  his  only  authority  is  1 
Mace.  5:  6,  etc.,  and  that  gives  him  no  support  whatever. 
For  the  historian  of  the  Maccabees  only  asserts,  that  when 
the  nations  round  about  heard  that  the  sanctuary  was  renew- 
ed, they  began  lo  make  common  cause  with  Antiochus  and 
to  harass  the  Jews.  The  Ammonites,  also,  and  the  Edomites, 
came  against  them ;  but  they  were  not  under  the  rule  of  An- 
tiochus, nor  was  Timotheus,  the  commander  of  the  former, 
appointed  by  Antiochus.  They  were  independent  nations, 
and  had  their  own  commanders,  and  were  the  old  enemies  of 
the  Jews. 

42  He  shall  stretch  forth  his  hand  also  upon  the  countries  :  and  the 

43  land  of  Egypt  shall  not  escape.  But  he  shall  have  power  over  the 
treasures  of  gold  and  of  silver,  and  over  all  the  precious  things  of 
Egypt :  and  the  Libyans  and  the  Ethiopians  shall  he  at  his  steps. 

The  first  clause  is  a  repetition,  for  the  sake  of  emphasis, 
of  the  declaration  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  introduces  the 
affirmation  respecting  Egypt,  the  particulars  of  which  have 
been  given  in  notes  to  verse  28.  It  is  not  here  asserted  that 
Antiochus  invaded  and  possessed  Libya  and  Ethiopia,  as 
some  suppose,  who  would  make  it  an  impossible  thing  to  ap- 
ply the  passage  to  Antiochus.  It  only  asserts  that  the  Libyans 
and  Ethiopians,  who  were  held  as  slaves  in  Egypt,  ceased  to 
be  the  slaves  of  Ptolemy,  and  became  the  attendants  and  ser- 
vants of  Antiochus. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  ll".  44.  59 

44  But  tidings  out  of  the  east  and  out  of  the  north  shall  trouble 
him :  therefore  he  shall  go  forth  with  great  fury  to  destroy,  and 
utterly  to  make  away  many. 

He  had  returned  to  Antioch,  as  already  related,  from  his 
last  expedition  into  Egypt,  and  to  console  himself  for  his  fail- 
ure in  that,  was  carrying  forward  his  project  to  conform  all 
parts  of  his  empire  to  one  standard  of  worship  and  laws.  With 
characteristic  recklessness,  and  devotedness  to  pleasure,  not- 
withstanding the  condition  of  his  kingdom,  he  was  celebra- 
ting games  in  the  neighboring  grove  of  Daphne,  in  honor  of 
Jupiter  Olympius,  when  he  heard  at  that  place  of  two  signal 
defeats  of  his  armies  by  Judas  Maccabeus.  The  effect  of  this 
news  on  Antiochus,  with  accompanying  events  illustrative  of 
this  verse,  are  related  in  part  by  the  author  of  the  first  book 
of  the  Maccabees,  3:  27 — 37,  *'Now  when  king  Antiochus 
heard  these  things,  he  was  full  of  indignation :  wherefore  he 
sent  and  gathered  together  all  the  forces  of  his  realm,  even  a 
very  strong  army.  He  opened  also  his  treasure,  and  gave  his 
soldiers  pay  for  a  year,  commanding  them  to  be  ready  when- 
soever he  should  need  them.  Nevertheless,  when  he  saw 
that  the  money  of  his  treasures  failed,  and  that  the  tributes 
in  the  country  were  small,  because  of  the  dissension  and  plague 
he  had  brought  upon  the  land,  in  taking  away  the  laws  which 
had  been  of  old  time;  he  feared  that  he  should  not  be  able 
to  bear  the  charges  any  longer,  nor  to  have  such  gifts  to  give 
so  liberally  as  he  did  before  :  for  he  had  abounded  above  the 
kings  that  were  before  him.  Wherefore  being  greatly  per- 
plexed in  his  mind,  he  determined  to  go  into  Persia,  there  to 
take  the  tributes  of  the  countries,  and  to  gather  much  money. 
So  he  left  Lysias,  a  nobleman,  and  one  of  the  blood  royal,  to 
oversee  the  affairs  of  the  king  from  the  river  Euphrates  to 
the  border  of  Egypt :  and  to  bring  up  his  son  Antiochus  un- 
til he  came  again.  Moreover  he  delivered  unto  him  the  half 
of  his  forces,  and  the  elephants,  and  gave  him  charge  of  all 
things  he  would  have  done,  as  also  concerning  them  that 


60  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  45. 

dwelt  in  Juda  and  Jerusalem :  that  he  should  send  an  army 
against  them,  to  destroy  and  root  out  the  strength  of  Israel, 
and  the  remnant  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  take  away  their  memo- 
rial from  that  place;  and  that  he  should  place  strangers  in 
all  their  quarters,  and  divide  their  land  by  lot.  [Compare 
verse  39.]  So  the  king  took  the  half  of  the  forces  that  re- 
mained, and  departed  from  Antioch,  his  royal  city,  the  hun- 
dred forty  and  seventh  year  [166  B.  C] ;  and  having  passed 
the  river  Euphrates,  he  went  through  the  high  countries." 
This  discontinuance  of  tribute  money  from  his  eastern  pro- 
vinces of  Persia  and  Media,  together  with  the  revolt  of  Ar- 
taxias  king  of  Armenia  which  lay  to  the  north-east  of  An- 
tioch, (the  "high  countries,")  were  the  tidings  out  of  the 
east  and  north,  which  troubled  him ;  and  the  fear  and  per- 
plexity it  produced,  with  a  treasury  exhausted  by  his  extrava- 
gant expenses  and  lavish  gifts,  lest  through  failure  of  means 
to  subdue  the  Jews,  he  should  be  thwarted  even  in  this  de- 
sire of  his  heart,  as  he  had  been  in  Egypt,  goaded  him  to  des- 
peration, and  he  went  forth  resolving  to  make  those  eastern 
and  northern  countries  an  example  of  his  severity  for  the 
trouble  they  caused  him,  Tacitus  also  speaks  of  this  expe- 
dition of  Antiochus,  and  confirms  the  facts  already  adduced. 
In  his  notice  of  the  Jews,  Book  v.  sec.  viii.,  he  says  that 
"  king  Antiochus  endeavored  to  root  out  their  superstition, 
and  introduce  the  customs  of  the  Greeks ;  but  he  was  hinder- 
ed from  making  that  most  vile  nation  any  better,  by  the  war 
of  the  Parthians ;  for  at  that  time  Arsaces  revolted." 

45  And  he  shall  plant  the  tabernacles  of  his  palaces  between  the 
seas,  in  the  glorious  holy  mountain  :  yet  he  shall  come  to  his  end, 
and  none  shall  help  him. 

"The  tabernacles  of  his  palaces"  may  be  the  towers  and 
fortress  he  caused  to  be  built  in  the  city  of  David, — the  holy 
mountain  of  Zion, — between  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Mediter- 
ranean, as  though  at  this  point  he  held  fast  the  land  from 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  11:  45.  61 

shore  to  shore  (see  under  verse  31) ;  as  though  by  possess- 
ing Jerusalem  he  kept  in  his  hand  the  key  to  the  whole 
territory,  and  could  both  hold  the  Jews  in  subjection,  and 
resist  the  attempts  of  Egypt  to  get  Palestine  again  into  its 
power.  Or  the  idea  may  be  that  of  pitching  his  palace-tenls 
on  mount  Zion,  to  signify  his  successful  entrance,  as  leader 
of  armies,  into  Jerusalem,  and  his  establishment  as  Prince  of 
the  province,  jast  as  Alexander  pitched  his  tents  in  Persepolis, 
and  became  master  of  Persia.  With  either  interpretation, 
the  verse  does  not  present  the  event  as  taking  place  chrono- 
logically after  those  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse ;  but 
it  is  a  description  to  heighten  the  effect  of  the  declaration  of 
his  end.  All  his  strength,  and  glory,  and  dominion  were  now 
to  depart ;  his  hold  on  Palestine  and  on  his  numerous  pro- 
vinces, loosed ;  the  ties  by  which  he  held  the  world  fast  to  his 
embrace,  forever  sundered.  Arrived  in  the  East,  he  had 
made  an  incursion  upon  the  city  of  Elymais,  situated  a  little 
south  of  the  border  of  Media,  near  the  river  Tigris,  for  the 
purpose  of  plundering  a  temple  of  Diana  there,  "  a  very  rich 
temple,  wherein  were  coverings  of  gold,  and  breastplates,  and 
shields,  which  Alexander  son  of  Philip  had  left  there."  It  is 
supposed  not  to  have  been  the  same  temple  which  Antiochus 
the  Great,  his  father,  attempted  to  plunder,  and  perished  in 
the  attempt.  That  was  in  the  ^romWe  of  Elymais,  this  in 
the  city  Elymais.  Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  repulsed  by  the 
inhabitants,  who  assembled  in  alarm  to  protect  their  temple. 
He  was  preserved  from  a  fate  like  his  father's  to  perish  more 
miserably.  He  effected  a  retreat  to  Ecbatana  in  Media.  He 
here  received  intelligence,  which  only  aggravated  him  the 
more — that  his  army  in  Judea  had  been  routed  ;  the  heathen 
altars  he  had  set  up  pulled  down,  and  the  desecrated  temple 
purified,  by  Judas  Maccabeus.  In  a  paroxysm  of  rage,  he 
immediately  commenced  his  return  to  Syria,  threatening 
"  that  he  would  come  to  Jerusalem  and  make  it  a  common 
burying-place  of  the  Jews."  He  commanded  his  charioteer 
6 


62  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  II:  45. 

to  drive  on,  with  the  utmost  rapidity,  stopping  neither  by  day 
nor  by  night.  His  excitement  and  over  exertion  brought  on 
him  a  disease  of  the  most  malignant  kind  (most  probably  the 
Asiatic  cholera) ;  yet  he  would  not  slacken  his  speed,  until 
by  some  accident  he  was  thrown  out  of  his  chariot  with  vio- 
lence to  the  ground.  Bruised  and  exhausted,  he  was  taken 
upon  a  litter,  and  still  borne  forward  on  his  journey ;  but 
even  (he  motion  of  that  was  too  painful  to  be  endured,  and 
he  was  compelled  to  stop  at  an  obscure  town  called  Tabae, 
on  the  confines  of  Persia  and  Babylonia,  where  his  disease, 
increasing  in  virulence,  became,  in  God's  hands,  a  divine 
judgment,  and  he  died  164  B.  C,  in  the  midst  of  anguish  of 
body,  exceeded  only  by  his  remorse.  He  came  to  his  end, 
and  there  was  none  to  help  him — not  though  in  his  anguish 
he  now  humbled  himself  before  that  God,  above  whom  he  had 
once  exalted  himself — not  though  he  said,  "It  is  meet  to  be 
subject  unto  God,  and  that  a  man  that  is  mortal  should  not 
proudly  think  of  himself,  as  if  he  were  God" — not  though  he 
"  vowed  also  unto  the  Lord,  that  the  holy  city  he  would  set 
at  liberty,  and  the  holy  temple,  which  before  he  had  spoiled, 
he  would  garnish  with  goodly  gifts,  and  restore  all  the  holy 
vessels  with  many  more ;  yea,  and  that  he  would  go  through 
all  the  world  that  was  inhabited,  and  declare  the  power  of 
God."  He  found  no  place  for  repentance  in  the  purposes  of 
heaven  as  to  the  time  and  manner  of  his  death,  though  he 
sought  it  carefully  and  with  tears.  "  Thus  the  murderer  and 
blasphemer,  having  suffered  most  grievously,  as  he  entreated 
other  men,  so  died  he  a  miserable  death  in  a  strange  country 
in  the  mountains,"  1  Mace.  vi.  2  Mace.  ix. 


Note. — Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  who  follows  the  interpretation  of  Bishop 
Newton  on  vs.  31 — 45,  makes  the  following  observation  :  "From  the 
beginning  of  the  chapter  to  the  end  of  verse  30,  all  is  very  clear  and 
plain,  relative  to  the  Grecian,  Syrian,  and  Egyptian  histories;  from 
verse  31  to  the  end,  the  mode  of  interpretation  is  not  so  satisfactory 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  VIII.  od 

in  its  application  to  the  times  since  Christ.  Yet  possibly  these  alone 
may  be  intended:  though  the  whole  might  be,  with  considerable  ease, 
applied  to  the  remaining  part  of  the  Syrian  and  Egyptian  history. 


SECTION  IL 
INTERPRETATION  OF  CHAP.  VIII. 

THE  DESECRATION,  AND  THE  CLEANSING  OF   THE  SANCTUARY. 

It  is  manifest,  on  the  perusal  of  this  chapter,  that  it  con- 
tains the  substance  of  chap.  xi.  So  do  all  interpreters  re- 
gard it,  however  their  views  differ  in  respect  to  the  mean- 
ing of  them  both.  In  8:  1—8,  20—22,  there  is  a  full  de- 
scription of  what  is  given  only  in  an  outline,  in  11:  1 — 4; 
and  there  is  given  in  8;  9 — 12,  23 — 25,  only  an  outline,  quite 
enigmatical  and  brief,  of  what  is  presented  with  great  fulness 
and  particularity  in  11:21 — 45.  One  event  is  foretold  in 
chap.  8:  14,  which  is  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  chap,  xi., 
though  implied  in  vs.  33 — 35.  It  is  the  event  of  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  sanctuary  J  which  is  made  the  chief  proof-text  by 
those  who  teach  that  the  world  will  come  to  an  end  in  1843. 
The  same  event  is  also  alluded  to  in  chap.  12:  7,  11.  But 
the  interpretation  of  that  chapter,  though  it  is  a  continuation 
of  the  vision  in  chaps,  x.  and  xi.,  is  not  needed  to  understand 
chap.  viii.  It  itself  needs  the  interpretation  of  the  other  chap- 
ters for  its  own  explanation,  because  it  seems  to  present  in 
an  outline  a  few  things  which  are  given  elsewhere  more  fully; 
just  as  11:  1 — 4  has  a  summary  description  of  events  foretold 
more  fully  in  8:  1 — 8,  20 — ^22,  though  the  predictions  re- 
corded in  chap.  xi.  are  on  the  whole  an  expansion  of  the  pro- 
phecy in  chap,  viii.,  and  contain  the  key  to  its  most  difficult 
passages.     One  portion  of  chap.  viii.  is  easy  to  be  understood, 


64  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  1,2. 

and  interpreters  entirely  agree  as  to  the  events  designated. 
But  on  verses  9 — 14,  and  23 — 25,  there  is  much  diversity  of 
opinion.  If  the  reader,  as  it  is  hoped,  has  accepted  the  re- 
suhs  of  the  interpretation  of  chap,  xi.,  he  will  come  to  the 
meaning  of  the  more  difficult  parts  of  this  chapter  with  much 
satisfaction  and  certainty. 

1  In  the  third  year  of  king  Belshazzar,  a  vision  appeared  unto  me, 
even  unto  me  Daniel,  after  that  which  appeared  unto  me  at  the  first. 

Belshazzar  began  to  reign  about  555  B.  C.  He  was  the 
Nabonadius,  or  Nabonnid,  of  profane  history,  and  reigned 
seventeen  years.  He  is  called  Nebuchadnezzar's  son,  5:  22. 
But  as  Evil-merodach  succeeded  Nebuchadnezzar,  Jer.  52: 
31,  and  as  Jeremiah  predicted  that  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
having  served  Nebuchadnezzar,  his  son,  and  his  son's  son, 
should  then  serve  themselves  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  27:  7, 
Belshazzar  was  doubtless  son  to  Evil-merodach,  although 
this  fact  is  not  expressly  mentioned ;  and  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  called  his  father  by  the  usage  which  often  makes  that  ap- 
pellation synonymous  with  ancestor.  Evil-merodach  was 
murdered  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign  by  Neriglissar,  his 
brother-in-law,  who  then  ascended  the  throne,  and  died  after 
a  reign  of  four  years.  Laborosoarchad,  Neriglissar's  son,  a 
minor,  next  succeeded,  and  after  nine  months  was  murdered 
by  his  nobles,  who  put  Nabonnid,  or  Belshazzar,  on  the 
throne,  with  his  mother  Nitocris  for  queen  regent,  and  Jere- 
miah's word  was  fulfilled  in  him  as  the  last  of  the  Babylonian 
kings,  Comp.  Dan.  5:  39,  31. 

If  the  phrase  "  at  the  first,"  be  taken  as  it  is,  it  refers  to  the 
vision  in  chap,  vii.,  as  the  first  which  Daniel  had,  and  makes 
this  the  second.  It  may  however  mean,  in  the  first  year  of 
his  reign.  The  visions  in  chaps,  vii,  viii,  precede  in  the  or- 
der of  time  the  events  narrated  in  chap.  v. 

2  And  I  saw  in  a  vision ;  and  it  came  to  pass,  when  1  saw,  that  1 
was  at  Shushan  in  the  palace,  which  is  in  the  province  of  Elam  ; 
and  I  saw  in  a  vision,  and  I  was  by  the  river  of  Ulai. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8*.  2.  65 

Shushan  was  Susa,  the  winter  residence  of  the  Persian 
kings  after  Cyrus,  as  Ecbatana  was  their  residence  in  sum- 
mer, Esther  1:  2.  Neh.  1:  1.  Its  received  its  name  from  the 
abundance  of  lilies  that  grew  in  the  region.  Ulai,  (the  an- 
cient Ulaeus,  or  Choaspes,  and  modern  Kerrah,)  on  which  it 
was  situated,  was  a  stream  emptying  into  the  Tigris  and  Eu- 
phrates after  their  confluence.  Elam,  the  province,  was  Ely- 
raais,  so  called  doubtless  from  Elam,  the  son  of  Shem,  (Gen. 
10:  22,)  who  settled  there.     Shushan  was  its  capital. 

It  would  seem,  from  the  structure  of  the  verse,  that  Daniel 
was  here  in  person,  not  by  vision,  as  Ezekiel  when  at  Baby- 
lon was  by  vision  at  Jerusalem.  A  comparison  of  Daniel 
with  Ezek.  8:  8,  and  40:  2,  will  show  that  the  language  in 
the  two  cases  is  quite  different.  And  the  two  cases  them- 
selves are  different ;  for  when  Ezekiel  was  by  vision  at  Jeru- 
salem, his  vision  particularly  concerned  that  city ;  but  Dan- 
iel's vision  concerned  Persia  no  more  than  Greece,  and  it 
concerned  Jerusalem  most  of  all ;  and  therefore,  under  such 
circumstances,  there  is  no  propriety  in  saying  that  he  was, 
by  vision,  at  a  palace  in  a  Persian  city.  No  particular  signi- 
ficance is  to  be  sought  in  his  being  at  Elam ;  but  he  states 
where  he  was  when  he  had  the  vision,  just  as  John  states  that 
he  was  "  in  the  isle  that  is  called  Patmos,"  when  he  had  the 
visions  of  the  Revelation. 

Elam  was  probably  at  this  time  appended  to  the  dominions 
of  Belshazzar,  and  its  capital  made  his  occasional  residence; 
and  Daniel  was  either  sent  there  on  official  business,  or  pre- 
sent with  the  king.  But  when  Cyrus  began  to  obtain  pos- 
session of  the  territory  round  about  Babylon,  it  was  probably 
united  to  Persia,  as  indeed  it  was  originally  a  Persian  pro- 
vince, and  with  ancient  writers,  though  not  in  the  Scriptures, 
was  the  name  for  the  whole  of  Persia.  Comp.  Jer.  49:  34 — 
39,  where  the  prophet  asserts  that  Elam  should  be  ravaged, 
[probably  by  Nebuchadnezzar,]  and  afterwards  be  delivered 
[probably  by  Cyrus.] 

6* 


66  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  3. 

In  modern  Chuzistan,  are  the  ruins  of  a  city  stretching 
twelve  miles  from  one  extremity  to  another.  The  largest 
pile  is  a  mile  in  circumference,  and  one  hundred  feet  high. 
Large  blocks  of  marble  covered  with  hieroglyphics,  are  often 
found.  Here  was  doubtless  the  ^ncient  Susa,  and"  here  is 
shown  "  Daniel's  sepulchre,"  to  this  day.  Josephus  relates, 
that  at  Ecbatana,  (it  ought  to  be  Susa,)  Daniel  built  a  mar- 
ble tower  of  great  beauty  and  skill,  which  remained,  even  so 
late  as  his  day,  in  a  state  of  perfect  preservation,  a  place  of 
sepulchre  for  the  kings  of  Media,  Persia,  and  Parthia,  and  its 
care  entrusted  to  a  Jewish  priest. 

3  Then  I  lifted  up  mine  eyes,  and  saw,  and  behold,  there  stood  be- 
fore the  river  a  ram  which  had  two  horns :  and  the  two  horns  tcere 
liigh,  but  one  was  higher  than  the  other,  and  the  higher  came  up 
last. 

The  expression  "lifted  up  my  eyes,"  shows  that  the  pro- 
phet had  this  vision  not  in  a  dream,  but  awake.  See  also  verse 
17,  and  compare  Num.  24:  34. 

The  ram,  an  emblem  of  strength  and  combativeness,  is 
well  chosen  to  represent  the  Medo-Persian  empire.  The 
horns  fitly  represent  the  two  first  kings,  or  race  of  kings — 
Darius  the  Mede,  and  Cyrus  the  Persian,  (see  on  11:  1,)  the 
latter  of  whom,  with  the  Persian  race  of  kings,  became  more 
powerful  than  Darius,  or  the  Median  race  of  kings  which 
ended  in  him.  Cyrus  towered  higher  than  his  predecessor, 
and  the  Persian  race  higher  than  the  Median.  It  has  been 
supposed  by  many,  (and  it  is  the  only  point  of  difference  be- 
tween commentators  on  verses  1 — 8,)  that  the  horns  designate 
kingdoms,  not  kings.  Says  Bishop  Newton,  "  A  horn  in  the 
style  of  Daniel  doth  not  signify  any  particular  king,  but  is  an 
emblem  of  a  kingdom,"*  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  those 
who  teach  that  the  end  of  the  world  will  be  in  1843.  Now 
there  occurs  in  this  very  chapter,  verse  21,  a  use  of  the  word 
"  horn  "  with  the  signification  of  king,  viz.  "  The  great  horn 

*  Newton  on  the  Prophecies,  p.  248. 


7ERS 

ing" 
is  indeed  sometimes  synonymous  both  in  common  usage,  and 
in  the  Scriptures,  with  kingdom.  It  is  so  used  in  this  chap- 
ter, in  the  same  verse  where  the  phrase  "  first  king  "  occurs, 
viz.  *'  And  the  rough  goat  is  the  king  of  Graecia."  But  with 
this  signification  of  kingdom  in  the  phrase  king  of  Graecia,  it 
becomes  the  more  clear  that  the  word  king  in  the  phrase 
"  first  king,"  is  to  be  taken  literally.  Bishop  Newton  him- 
self, however  inconsistently,  admits  this  same  meaning — for 
speaking  of  the  "little  horn,"  verse  9  below,  he  says,  "The 
little  horn  did  not  typify  a  single  person,  but  a  succession  of 
men,  claiming  such  powers  as  are  there  specified."  A  suc- 
cession of  men  is  the  race  or  dynasty  of  princes,  not  the  na- 
tion itself — so  do  those  in  effect  use  the  word,  who  deny  that 
it  means  kings.  As  to  the  use  of  the  word  "  horn  "  in  the 
Scriptures,  it  is  everywhere  an  emblem  of  power  and  glory, 
and  when  spoken  of  in  connection  with  a  nation,  means  the 
royal  power,  which  was  the  glory  of  the  nation,  Ezek.  29: 
21.  Jer.  48:  25. 

4  I  saw  the  ram  pushing  westward,  and  northward,  and  southward ; 
so  that  no  beast  might  stand  before  him,  neither  was  there  any  that 
could  deliver  out  of  his  hand ;  but  he  did  according  to  his  will,  and 
became  great. 

The  Medo-Persian  nation  pushed  its  conquests  westward  as 
far  as  the  Aegean  sea,  or  Archipelago ;  northward  into  Ar- 
menia, Col-chis,  Iberia  and  Scythia ;  and  southward  into 
Arabia,  Egypt,  and  Libya  It  also  made  conquests  in  India  on 
the  east,  but  so  inconsiderable  as  to  be  unworthy  of  particular 
notice.  Its  main  strength  was  exercised  toward  the  west, 
and  north,  and  south ;  and  it  became  the  dominant  empire 
of  the  world.  Wherever  it  directed  its  energies,  no  nation 
could  oppose  effectual  resistance,  none  had  allies  able  to  res- 
cue them. 

5  And  as  I  was  considering,  behold  an  he-goat  came  from  the  west 
on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  and  touched  not  the  ground  :  and 


68  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  8:  5-^7. 

6  the  he-goat  kad  a  notable  horn  between  his  eyes.  And  he  came  to 
the  ram  that  had  two  horns,  which  f  had  seen  standing  before  the 

7  river,  and  ran  unto  him  in  the  fury  of  his  power.  And  I  saw  him 
come  close  unto  the  ram,  and  he  was  moved  with  choler  against 
him,  and  smote  the  ram,  and  brake  his  two  horns :  and  there  was 
no  power  in  the  ram  to  stand  before  him,  but  he  cast  him  down  to 
the  ground,  and  stamped  upon  him  :  and  there  was  none  that  could 
deliver  the  ram  out  of  his  hand. 

There  was  presented  to  the  prophet,  while  he  was  consid- 
ering what  was  the  meaning,  and  what  would  be  the  issue  of 
the  vision,  the  emblem  of  a  he-goat,  (in  the  original,  the  he- 
goat  of  the  goats,  i.  e.  the  leader  of  the  flock,)  denoting  more 
impetuosity,  and  strength,  aud  fleetness  than  the  ram.     The 
prophet  is  told,  verse  21,  that  this  goat  represents  the  king 
(or  kingdom)  of  Greece,  and   that  the  conspicuous  horn  be- 
tween his  eyes  (the  horn  in  that  position  indicating  both  sa- 
gacity and  strength)  represents  the  first  king.     It  needs  not 
language  so  explicit  even  as  that  of  verse  21,  to  satisfy  us 
that  the  Grecian  empire  under  Alexander  the  Great  is  meant 
in  vs.  5 — 7.     His  rapid  marches  in  which  he  overran  Asia 
in  so  short  a  time,  his  impetuous  onsets,  the  fall  of  the  Medo- 
Persian  empire,  and  the  destruction  of  the  long  race  of  kings 
springing  from  Darius  and  Cyrus,  are  graphically  described. 
He  started  from  Macedon  early  in  the  spring  of  334  B.  C. 
with  an  army  of  about  30,000  foot  and  5000  horse,  crossed 
the  Hellespont  into  Asia,  and  had  reached  the  river  Granicus 
in  Mysia,  when  a  Persian  army  of  100,000  foot  and  10,000 
horse,  (some  say  20,000  foot  and  as  many  horse,)  stood  on 
the  opposite  bank  to  dispute  the  passage  with  him.     He  allow- 
ed his  army  no  time  to  rest,  but  himself  led  on  the  right  wing 
of  his  cavalry  into  the  river,  and  though  repulsed  at  first,  ef- 
fected a  landing,  followed  by  all  his  army  with  shoutings  and 
trumpets.    A  close  and  severe  battle  was  fought,  which  result- 
ed in  a  signal  victory  on  the  side  of  the  Greeks.     He  thence 
passed  into  Lydia,  Caria,  Lycia,  Pamphylia,  Phrygia  and  Cap- 
padocia,  subduing  all  to  his  sway  ;  thence  into  Cilicia  to  a 


INTERPRETATIQN  OF  DANIEL  8:  5 7.  69 

pass  in  its  eastern  extremity  near  the  city  Issus,  where  in  a 
plain  bounded  by  mountains  on  one  side,  and  by  the  sea  on 
the  other,  and  parted  by  a  river  running  across  it,  he  was  met 
by  the  Persian  army  commanded  by  Darius  in  person.  Alex- 
ander marched  towards  him  at  first  slowly,  until  he  came  to  the 
river,  then  with  his  right  wing  plunged  in,  and  soon  both  ar- 
mies were  engaged  hand  to  hand,  with  dreadful  slaughter, 
some  on  this  side  of  the  river,  and  some  on  that  side — the  Per- 
sian cavalry  having  also  crossed  the  river  toward  the  Mace- 
donians in  the  beginning  of  the  engagement.  Victory  de- 
clared itself  a  second  time  on  the  side  of  Alexander,  and  Da- 
rius was  one  of  the  first  to  flee,  first  in  his  chariot,  and  then 
on  horseback,  throwing  down  bow,  shield,  and  royal  mantle. 
From  Asia  Minor,  Alexander  marched  back  into  Syria,  de- 
stroyed Tyre,  entered  and  subdued  Egypt,  and  also  made  the 
visit  to  Jerusalem  mentioned  under  11:  3,  4.  In  the  spring 
of  331  B.  C,  he  set  out  again  for  the  conquest  of  Persia,  cros- 
sed the  Euphrates  and  Tigris,  and  met  Darius  with  his  forces 
not  far  from  the  city  Arbela.  Here  in  the  year  330  B.  C,  in 
the  month  of  October,  just  about  two  years  after  the  battle  of 
Issus,  and  at  a  place  about  as  far  east  from  that,  as  Issus 
was  from  the  Granicus,  a  battle  was  fought  more  furious  and 
bloody  than  the  preceding,  and  terminated  in  the  entire  defeat 
of  the  Persians.  Darius  escaped,  a  fugitive  with  a  few  thou- 
sand followers.  He  had  twice  sued  for  peace,  proposing  to 
give  up  to  Alexander  all  the  territories  between  the  Helles- 
pont and  the  Euphrates ;  but  Alexander  insisted  on  entire 
submission,  or  a  decision  by  battle,  and  in  his  last  letter  thus 
addressed  him — "  I  attack  neither  prisoners  nor  women,  but 
turn  my  rage  against  such  only  as  are  armed  for  the  fight. 
Since  Darius  still  continues  by  letters  and  by  money  to  insti- 
gate my  soldiers  to  betray  me,  and  my  friends  to  murder  me, 
I  therefore  am  determined  to  pursue  him  with  the  utmost 
vigor,  and  that  not  as  an  enemy,  but  a  poisoner  and  an 


70  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  5 7. 

sin."  The  impetuosity  and  fury  of  the  attack  corresponded 
with  the  threats,  and  toward  the  close  it  could  better  be  call- 
ed a  slaughter  than  a  battle.  The  Persian  cities,  with  their 
immense  treasures,  now  lay  open  to  Alexander.  He  forthwith 
entered  Babylon,  Susa,  and  Persepoiis  ;  in  which  last  city,  the 
capital  of  Persia,  and  richer  than  all  the  cities  he  had  taken, 
when  he  had  satiated  his  soldiers'  appetite  for  plunder,  he 
added  the  barbarity  and  the  folly  of  burning  the  magnificent 
palace  of  Xerxes,  himself  leading  the  way  with  a  lighted 
torch,  and  the  Macedonians  following  his  example.  From 
Persepoiis  he  started  again  in  pursuit  of  Darius,  but  this  un- 
fortunate king  was  reserved  for  a  more  ignoble  end  than  to 
fall  into  the  hands  of  Alexander.  Two  of  his  generals  had 
conspired  against  him  to  deliver  him  up,  if  necessary  to  pre- 
serve themselves  against  Alexander,  or,  if  they  should  escape 
the  hands  of  the  Macedonians,  destroy  him  and  usurp  his 
throne.  At  the  approach  of  Alexander,  they  wished  to  hurry 
Darius  along  with  them  in  flight ;  but  he  had  discovered  their 
designs,  and  refused.  They  immediately  turned  upon  him 
with  their  spears,  and  left  him  in  his  chariot  covered  with 
mortal  wounds.  He  breathed  his  last,  just  as  the  conquer- 
ing monarch  came  up,  and  in  him  the  Persian  empire  ended, 
having  continued  206  ye  irs  from  the  accession  of  Cyrus. 
Thus  did  the  Macedonians  under  Alexander  cast  down  and 
trample  under  foot  the  empire  of  Persia,  and  lay  its  horns  of 
glory — its  monarch,  sceptre  and  throne — low  in  the  dust. 

The  emblem  of  the  ram  with  its  two  horns  is  preserved, 
because  they  stand  for  the  two  racesi,i\\e  twofold  dynasty,  of 
kings  that  hud  swayed  the  Medo-Persian  sceptre,  and  because 
the  first  horn,  Darius  I,  was  not  broken  off,  to  give  place  to 
the  second  and  higher,  Cyrus  ;  (comp.  verse  8,  and  7:  8,  20, 
24  ;)  but  the  two  lines  met  together  in  Cambyses,  the  son  of 
Cyrus  and  of  the  daughter  of  Darius  I,  and  the  two  horns 
remained  the  emblems  of  the  original  two  races  of  the  Medo- 
Persian  kings. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  8,  9.  71 

8  Therefore  [Heb.  And]  the  he-goat  waxed  very  great:  and  when 
he  was  strong,  the  great  horn  was  broken  ;  and  for  it  came  up  four 
notable  ones  toward  the  four  winds  of  heaven. 

After  the  conquest  of  Persia,  Alexander  marched  into  In- 
dia. Returning,  he  made  Babylon  his  capital,  where  embas- 
sadors came  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  to  present  the  hom- 
age and  fealty  of  their  respective  nations,  and  he  gave  audi- 
ence to  them  with  all  the  majesty  and  pomp  of  the  greatest 
monarch  of  the  earth.  But  he  gave  himself  up  to  luxury  and 
excess,  and  soon  perished.  He  died,  no  son  of  his  succeed- 
ing, except  to  the  name,  but  without  the  authority,  of  king, 
and  that  only  for  a  very  short  season.  The  conspicuous  horn 
was  broken  off,  the  race  of  kings  destroyed,  and  others  arose 
in  its  place.  See  further,  in  explanation  of  this  verse,  on  11: 
3,  4.  The  four  horns  denote,  like  the  two  in  8:  3,  and  the 
one  in  8:  5,  four  kings,  or  races  of  kings,  viz.  those  be- 
tween whom  Alexander's  empire  was  divided,  as  mentioned 
under  11:  4. 

d  And  out  of  one  of  them  came  forth  a  Ittle  horn,  which  waxed 
exceeding  great,  toward  the  south,  and  toward  the  east,  and  toward 
the  pleasant  land. 

From  Seleucus,  one  of  those  four  horns,  or  from  the  race 
of  the  Seleucidae,  descended  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  The 
emblem  of  a  "  little  horn,"  branching  off  from  one  of  the 
great  horns,  well  describes  him,  and  his  small  beginnings,  as 
younger  son  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  of  the  race  of  the  Seleu- 
cidae ;  as  hostage  at  Rome  during  the  reign  of  his  elder  bro- 
ther, Seleucus  Philopator  ;  as  the  illegal  successor  to  his  bro- 
ther, while  the  son  and  heir  of  that  brother  was  living ;  as 
the  "  vile  person  to  whom  they  gave  not  the  honor  of  the 
kingdom,"  but  who  **  obtained  it  by  flatteries ;"  as  a  monarch 
of  comparative  insignificance  at  first,  because  the  resources 
of  the  Syrian  empire  were  well  nigh  exhausted,  and  its  terri- 
tory circumscribed  within  narrow  limits.     The  increase  of 


72  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  8:  9. 

his  power,  and  the  extension  of  his  kingdom  over  Egypt,  over 
Armenia  and  Persia,  and  over  Palestine  "the  pleasant  land," 
(rather  the  glorious  land,  for  it  is  the  same  word  translated 
"glorious"  in  11:  45,)  are  denoted  by  the  growth  of  the  lit- 
tle horn,  and  its  extension  toward  the  south,  etc.  as  already 
illustrated  under  11:  21 — 45. 

It  is  objected  by  those  who  make  horn  synonymous  with 
kingdom,  that  '*  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  instead  of  being  an- 
other kingdom  growing  out  of  the  Syrian  government,  was 
that  horn  or  government  itself."  But  this  objection  depends 
on  an  interpretation,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  opposed  by 
the  usage  of  the  chapter  itself,  and  is  not  adhered  to  by  those 
who  make  the  objection.  The  explanation,  which  the  wri- 
ters above  alluded  to  give  of  the  little  horn,  will  be  seen  to 
be  forced,  and  altogether  foreign  from  the  mode  of  the  pro- 
phet in  other  places.  Says  Bishop  Newton,  "  Is  it  not  more 
applicable  to  the  Romans,  who  first  subdued  Macedon  and 
Greece,  the  capital  kingdom  of  the  goat,  and  thence  spread 
their  conquests  1  When  the  Romans  first  got  footing  in 
Greece  then  they  became  a  horn  of  the  goat."*  Others  fol- 
lowing him  in  the  objection,  but  differing  from  him  in  the 
explanation,  and  calculating  the  end  of  the  world  in  1843, 
say  that  the  little  horn  was  the  Papal  power,  which  sprung 
out  of  the  Greek  empire  as  follows  : — "  Constantine  the  Ro- 
man emperor  removed  the  seat  of  empire  to  Constantinople. 
After  his  death,  the  Roman  empire  was  divided  between  his 
three  sons — Constantius,  who  inherited  the  east,  and  the 
other  two  the  west.  The  Greek  kingdom  had  again  become 
an  independent  government  under  Constantius,  but  on  the 
death  of  his  brothers,  the  whole  empire  came  into  his  hands, 
and  the  Roman  empire  was  again  united.  But  A.  D.  356, 
the  Huns  invaded  the  Roman  empire,  and  between  356  and 
483  there  were  nine  other  independent  kingdoms  within  the 

*  Prophecies,  p.  249. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  9.  73 

Roman  empire.  But  during  aJl  this  time,  the  eastern  or 
Greek  empire,  as  it  was  called,  remained  entire  and  indepen- 
dent. In  A.  D.  534,  the  Greek  emperor  Justinian  constitu- 
ted the  Bishop  of  Rome  head  of  all  the  churches,  and,  538, 
conquered  Rome,  and  established  the  Pope  in  his  see."*  Thus 
the  little  horn  sprung  out  of  the  great  one. 

As  to  the  first  explanation  by  Bishop  Newton,  the  symbol 
would  favor  it  somewhat,  if  it  had  been  a  little  horn  graffed 
(if  such  an  expression  may  be  used)  upon  one  of  the  large 
ones,  not  growing  out  of  it ;  or  if  this  one  of  the  great  horns 
had  been  destroyed,  and  the  little  one  had  grown  up  in  its 
place.  Besides,  Palestine  lay  toward  the  east ;  and  if  the 
prophet  had  meant  to  describe  the  conquests  of  the  Roman 
empire,  he  would  not  have  said  both  "  toward  the  east,'^  and 
"  toward  the  pleasant  land."  Nor,  if  events  must  be  taken  in 
the  order  of  the  prophecy,  would  he  have  said  toward  the 
south,  and  toward  the  east ;  but  toward  the  east  and  toward 
the  south,  because,  as  says  the  Bishop,  they  "  first  subdued 
Greece,"  or  the  east,  "  and  thence  spread  their  conquests." 

As  to  the  second  explanation  by  those  who  find  the  Pope  in 
the  little  horn,  it  is  mere  castle-building  without  materials  ta- 
ken from  history.  The  subjects  of  Justinian  were  not  called 
Greeks  except  by  the  Goths  in  reproach,!  nor  was  -the  eastern 
empire  called  the  Greek  empire.  It  was  the  Roman  empire 
in  the  east ;  and  Justinian  as  Roman  emperor  appointed  two 
of  his  creatures,  Vigilius  and  Pelagius  I,  successively  to  the 
Papal  see.|  In  533,  five  years  before  he  conquered  Rome, 
(according  to  these  writers,)  he  published  as  Roman  empe- 
ror, his  famous  code  of  Roman  laws  called  Pandects  (univer- 
sal code)  or  Institutes,  for  the  regulation  of  the  empire. 

We  see  the  impossibility  of  applying  the  little  horn,  whe- 
ther to  the  Roman  empire,  or  to  the  Papacy.     We  come  back 

''  Litch's  Address  to  the  Clergy,  pp.  78 — 80.     Miller's  Lectures,  etc. 
t  Gibbon's  Roman  Empire,  Vol.  III.  p.  97. 
X  Giesler's  Church  History,  Vol.  I.  p.  341. 

7 


74  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  10 12. 

to  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  If,  in  verse  21,  an  individual  king, 
or  race  of  kings,  may  be  designated  by  the  emblem  of  a  horn, 
(and  a  writer  on  the  latter  hypothesis  of  the  two  above  men- 
tioned remarks  that  '*  all  expositors  are  agreed  that  this  text, 
[verse  21]  points  out  the  Macedonian  kingdom,  and  the  not- 
able horn  Alexander  the  Great,"*)  then  may  an  individual 
king,  or  race  of  kings,  be  designated  by  the  little  horn  in  verse 
9 ;  and  if  the  events  predicted  agree  in  him,  that  little  horn  was 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Thus  far  in  this  verse,  we  have  seen 
that  they  do  agree.  It  will  also  appear,  that  all  that  is  assert- 
ed of  the  little  horn  in  this  chapter,  has  been  asserted  in  ch. 
xi,  of  one  whom  the  context  and  laws  of  language  allow  to 
be  no  other  than  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ;  and  if  he  is  meant 
there,  he  must  be  meant  here.  It  should  confirm  the  convic- 
tion that  the  little  horn  is  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  to  learn  that 
he  is  spoken  of  in  1  Mace.  1:  10,  in  a  manner  corresponding 
perfectly  with  Daniel, — "  And  there  came  out  of  them  [i.  e. 
out  of  "  Alexander's  servants  who  after  his  death  put  crowns 
upon  themselves ;  so  did  their  sons  after  them,"]  a  wicked 
root,  Antiochus  surnamed  Epiphanes,  son  of  Antiochus  the 
king."  And  says  even  Bishop  Newton,  while  he  applies  it 
not  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  but  to  the  Roman  kingdom, 
"  This  little  horn  is  by  the  generality  of  interpreters,  both 
Jewish  and  Christian,  ancient  and  modern,  supposed  to  mean 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.  So  Josephus  understands  it,  and  so 
Jerome  explains  it."f 

10  And  it  waxed  great,  even  to  the  host  of  heaven ;  and  it  cast 
down  some  of  the  host  and  of  the  stars  to  the  ground,  and  stamped 

11  upon  them.  Yea,  he  magnified  himself  even  to  the  prince  of  the 
host,  and  by  him  the  daily  sacrifice  was  taken  away,  and  the  place 

12  of  his  sanctuary  was  cast  down.  And  an  host  was  given  him 
against  the  daily  sacrifice  by  reason  of  transgression,  and  it  cast 
down  the  truth  to  the  ground ;  and  it  practised,  and  prospered. 

In  illustration  of  verse  10,  and  the  first  clause  of  verse  11, 
*  Litch's  Address,  p.  76.  t  Prophecies,  p.  247. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  10 12.  75 

compare  the  following :  "  Thou  hast  said  in  thine  heart,  I 
will  ascend  into  heaven,  I  will  exalt  my  throne  above  the  stars 
of  God :  I  will  sit  also  [even]  upon  the  mount  of  the  congrega- 
tion, in  the  sides  of  tlte  north :  J  will  ascend  above  the  heights 
of  the  clouds ;  I  will  be  like  the  Most  High,"  Is.  14:  13,  14. 
"  Thou,  O  Belshazzar,  hast  lifted  up  thyself  against  the  Lord 
of  heaven ;  and  they  have  brought  the  vessels  of  his  house  be- 
fore thee,  and  thou,  and  thy  lords,  thy  wives  and  thy  concu- 
bines, have  drunk  wine  in  them;  and  thou  hast  praised  the 
gods  of  silver,  and  gold,  of  brass,  iron,  wood,  and  stone,  which 
see  not,  nor  hear,  nor  know  :  and  the  God  in  whose  hand  thy 
breath  is,  and  whose  are  all  thy  ways,  hast  thou  not  glorified." 
Dan.  5:  22,  23.  Also  2  Mace.  9:  8,  10,— most  remarkably  in 
point,  as  the  historian  is  speaking  of  A.  Epiphanes — "  And 
thus  he  that  a  little  afore  thought  he  might  command  the 
waves  of  the  sea,  (so  proud  was  he  beyond  the  condition  of 
man,)  and  weigh  the  high  mountains  in  a  balance,  was  now 
cast  on  the  ground ;  and  the  man,  that  thought  a  little  afore 
he  could  reach  to  the  stars  of  heaven,  no  man  could  endure 
to  carry  for  his  intolerable  stench." 

The  appellation  "prince  of  the  host,"  does  not  seem  to  be 
synonymous  with  the  phrase  "  prince  of  the  covenant,"  in  11: 
22,  though  the  word  "  host"  seems  to  be  figuratively  used,  at 
least  in  the  middle  clause,  for  the  ministers  and  priests  of  the 
temple — the  Jewish  hierarchy — perhaps  also  for  the  worship- 
pers in  the  temple.  In  verse  25,  it  is  exchanged  for  "  Prince  of 
princes,"  and  what  is  here  asserted  respecting  "  the  prince  of 
the  host,"  is  expressed  in  a  parallel  clause  in  11;  36,  "he 
shall  speak  marvellous  things  against  the  God  of  gods."  It 
does  not  therefore  here  denote  )Jke  high-priest,  but  Jehovah. 
Compare  also  the  following:  "As  I  live  saith  the  King, 
whose  name  is  the  Lord  of  hosts."  "  Lift  up  your  eyes  on 
high,  and  behold  who  hath  created  these  things,  that  bringeth 
out  their  host  by  number."  "  Thus  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  were  finished,  and  all  the  host  of  them,"  Jer.  46:  18, 


76  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  10 12. 

Is.  40:  16.  Gen.  2:  1.  If  the  first  clause  of  verse  11  denotes 
more  than  the  utterance  of  words  of  blasphemy,  (see  the  ex- 
planation of  the  corresponding  clause  in  11:  36,)  it  is  to  be 
taken  in  the  sense  that  what  is  done  against  God's  servants 
is  done  against  himself — a  principle  expressed  so  forcibly  in 
Zech.  2:  8,  "  He  that  toucheth  you,  toucheth  the  apple  of  his 
eye."  Jerusalem,  and  the  temple,  and  the  Jews,  were  the 
city,  and  sanctuary,  and  people,  of  the  Lord  of  hosts. 

The  phrase  "by  him,"  in  the  middle  clause  of  verse  11, 
is  bi/  it,  i.  e.  by  the  little  horn,  or  the  king  it  denotes.  The 
phrase  "  place  of  his  sanctuary,"  in  the  last  clause  of  verse 
II,  means  the  place  of  the  sanctuary  of  "  the  prince  of  the 
host,"  compare  Is.  60:  13,  14,  "  The  glory  of  Lebanon  shall 
come  unto  thee,  to  beautify  the  place  of  my  sanctuary,  and 
they  shall  call  thee  Zion,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel."  The 
place  of  his  sanctuary  was  Zion,  "  city  of  our  God,  the  moun- 
tain of  his  holiness,"  Ps.  48:  1,  2.     See  further  on  verse  14. 

The  first  clause  of  verse  12  literally  reads,  An  host  was 
set  against  the  continual  [burnt  offering]  by  reason  of  trans- 
gression. "An  host"  often  means  an  armed  soldiery,  and  such 
is  doubtless  its  significance  here,  the  prophet  passing  from 
one  meaning  to  the  other,  and  perhaps  using  the  word  host  of 
the  little  horn  with  some  significance,  as  comparing  it  with 
the  host  of  the  king  of  heaven  against  whom  the  little  horn 
thus  magnified  itself.  Instead  of  "  by  reason  of  transgres- 
sion," where  the  prophet  would  be  made  to  suggest  the 
great  wickedness  of  the  Jews  as  the  reason  of  the  invasion, 
it  may  read,  with  transgression — that  is,  an  armed  soldiery 
shall  be  sent  to  commit  the  great  transgression  of  taking 
away  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifices  of  the  sanctuary. 
See  further  on  verse  23.*     The  casting  down  of  the  truth 

*  There  is  one  other  interpretation  which  the  first  clause  of  v.  12 
may  literally  have,  though  it  indeed  amounts  to  the  same,  viz.  The 
host  shall  be  given  up,  in  addition  to  the  sanctuary,  to  the  transgres- 
sion.    That  is,  God's  chosen  people,  including  some  of  the  brightest 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  13.  77 

to  the  ground,  by  the  armed  soldiery,  or  by  him  who  sent 
them,  was  the  overthrow  of  divine  institutions,  the  prostration 
of  God's  holy  religion,  the  abolition  of  his  law.  He  who  sent 
the  army  accomplished  his  purposes,  ("  practised,"  which  is 
the  same  word  in  the  original  translated  "shall  deal,"  and 
^'thus  shall  he  do,"  in  11:  7,  17,)  he  prospered  in  his  de- 
signs. How  can  language  more  appropriately  describe,  than 
do  these  verses,  the  towering  ambition  of  Antiochus  Epipha- 
nes,  his  deeds  against  Jerusalem,  against  the  temple,  against 
the  Jews,  as  already  illustrated  under  11:  22,  28,  30 — 36? 
Is  it  possible,  in  the  light  of  these  facts,  not  to  find  that  An- 
tiochus Epiphanes  is  the  little  horn  here  described  ?  Is  this 
prophecy  in  chap.  viii.  any  more  than  the  germ  of  the  full  pro- 
phecy in  11:  21 — 45?  But  even  more  light  is  to  be  given 
us  in  vs.  23 — 25,  to  enable  us  to  discern  who  it  is ;  and  it  will 
then  be  seen  whether  the  remark  has  been  made  with  any  ac- 
curacy by  Bishop  Newton  and  others,  (Prophecies  p.  247,) 
that  "Antiochus  Epiphanes  doth  indeed  in  some  features  very 
much  resemble  the  little  horn,  but  upon  a  nearer  view  and 
examination  it  will  evidently  appear,  that  in  other  parts  there 
is  no  manner  of  similitude  or  correspondence  between  them." 

13  Then  I  heard  one  saint  speaking,  and  another  saint  said  unto 
that  certain  saint  which  spake,  How  long  shall  he  the  vision  con- 
cerning the  daily  sacrifice,  and  the  transgression  of  desolation,  to 
give  both  the  sanctuary  and  the  host  to  be  trodden  under  foot  ? 

These  saints,  i.  e.  the  holy  ones,  the  angels  of  God.,  are  in- 

ornaments  and  highest  rulers  of  the  nation,  shall  be  given  up,  along 
with  the  temple,  into  the  hands  of  the  transgressors  their  enemy. 
The  word  "  transgression  "  may  be  used  elliptically  for  men  of  trans- 
gression, or  as  tlie  abstract  for  the  concrete,  (See  Ezek.  2:  7,  where 
the  words  "  most  rebellious"  in  our  Translation,  are  in  the  Hebrew, 
rebellion,  i.  e.  men  of  rebellion.)  The  sentiment  of  this  first  clause 
is  found  in  the  verses  immediately  preceding,  and  may  be  here  re- 
peated to  give  it  emphasis,  just  as  the  first  clause  of  v.  7  repeats  the 
sentiment  contained  in  v.  6. 

7* 


78  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  8:   14. 

troduced  by  a  sort  of  scenic  representation  before  the  pro- 
phet, to  make  the  whole  more  impressive.  The  "  transgres- 
sion of  desolation,"  is  the  same  substantially  with  "  abomina- 
tion of  desolation,"  11:  31,  though  it  seems  to  have  here  a 
larger  signification ;  and  it  rather  confirms  the  interpretation 
given  of  the  first  clause  of  verse  12 — "  An  host  was  set  against 
the  continual  [burnt-offering]  with  transgression."  The 
question  "  How  long  shall  be  the  vision  concerning  the  daily 
sacrifice,"  is  literally,  How  long  the  vision — viz.  the  contin- 
ual [burnt-offering]  and  the  transgression  of  desolation  ?  (or 
desolating  transgression?)  Our  translation  expresses  the 
sense,  and  the  same  sort  of  grammatical  construction  is  found 
in  other  places.*  It  is,  How  long  shall  be  the  period  in  the 
vision,  which  covers  the  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice, 
and  the  giving  up  of  the  sanctuary  and  its  worshippers  to  be 
trodden  under  foot  1  How  long  shall  it  be  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  of  the  desolating  transgression  ? 

14       And  he  said  unto  me,  Unto  two   thousand  and  three  hundred 
days ;  then  shall  the  sanctuary  be  cleansed. 

The  words  "  sanctuary,"  and  "  daily  sacrifice,"  in  verses 
13,  14,  must  refer  back  to  the  words  "  sanctuary,"  and  "  dai- 
ly sacrifice,"  in  verses  11,  12,  and  designate  the  same  things, 
and  have  the  same  meaning  which  those  two  words  express 
in  11:  31,  whatever  be  the  events  asserted  respecting  them. 
It  is  the  same  "  sanctuary  "  which  was  to  be  "  cast  down," 
and  "  trodden  under  foot,"  that  was  also  to  *'  be  cleansed." 
How  is  it  possible  to  read  this  chapter,  and  not  see  and  feel 
it  must  be  so  ?  What  usage  whether  of  Scripture  or  of  com- 
mon sense  can  be  brought  to  justify  the  separation  of  these 
words  in  so  close  a  connexion,  and  making  sanctuary  meaipi 
one  thing  in  verses  11,  13,  and  another  thing  in  verse  14? 
And  yet  this  separation  is  made  by  those  who  teach  the  end 
of  the  world  in  A.  D.  1843,  and  who  make  this  passage  the 

*  See  Stuart's  Heb.  Gramm.,  Syntax,  on  Apposition. 


^       or  TBB       'V 

VERSITY 

INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  J^^J^^  «.      '^  "^^ 

great  proof-text  to  support  their  doctrine.  ThesS^^ilers  are 
divided  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  sanctuary  "  in  verse 
11 — some  affirming  that  it  means  "Paganism's  sanctuary,"* 
and  others  admitting,  that  it  means  "  the  Jewish  sanctuary," 
while  these  last  affirm,  inconsistently  enough,  that  in  11:  31, 
it  means  the  city  Rome.t  But  all  of  them  take  the  word 
"  sanctuary  "  in  verse  14,  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  vs. 
11, 13,  while  they  also  differ  from  each  other  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  in  verse  14 — some  of  them  affirming  that  it  means 
the  Christian  church,}:  and  others  that  it  means  the  earth.§ 

In  respect  to  the  meaning  "  Paganism's  sanctuary,"  it  has 
been  sufficiently  shown,  under  11:  31,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  make  any  such  application  of  the  word.  And  where  was 
the  place  of  Paganism's  sanctuary  ?  Was  it  Rome?  Was 
it  an  abstract  term  for  the  Pagan  system  throughout  the  Ro- 
man empire  ?  So  the  writer  alluded  to  seems  to  consider  it ; 
for  he  says,  "  The  place  of  Paganism's  sanctuary  was  then 
cast  down,  and  in  its  place  a  new  system  of  idolatry  was  set 
up — viz.  the  worship  of  saints  and  images."||  But  who  can 
fail  to  see  that  this  is  a  construction  harsh  and  unwarranta- 
ble to  the  last  degree  1 

As  to  the  meaning  assigned  by  the  writers  above  mention- 
ed to  "sanctuary"  in  verse  14,  i.  e.  either  "the  Christian 
church,"  or  "  the  earth ;"  it  is  said  in  support  of  the  former, 
that  the  use  of  the  word  is  supported  by  Heb.  8:  2,  where  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  called  "  a  minister  of  the  sanctuary,  and 
of  the  true  tabernacle,  which  the  Lord  pitched,  and  not  man." 
Now  this  meaning  cannot  be  applied  to  Dan.  8:  14,  and  the 
sentiment  be,  that  at  the  end  of  2300  years  the  true  Chris- 
tian church  shall  be  cleansed.  The  true  tabernacle  and 
sanctuary  in  Heb.  8:  1,  is  the  inner  sanctuary  of  all  true 
saints — it  is  the  spiritual  building  of  God,  eternal  in  the  hea- 

*  Litch's  Address  to  the  Clergy,  p.  81. 

t  Miller's  Lectures,  pp.  40,  41.  t  Litch,  p.  83. 

§  Miller,  Fitch,  etc.  ||  Litch,  p.  81. 


80  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  14. 

vens,  and  is  called  "  true  "  in  distinction  from  the  earthly, 
temporary,  and  perishable.  It  is  the  greater  and  more  per- 
fect tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  Heb.  9:  11,  and  con- 
cerning it  the  sacred  writer  declares  "  the  heavenly  things 
themselves  to  be  purified  with  better  sacrifices,"  than  the 
earthly ;  and  he  adds,  that  "  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the  holy 
places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of  the  true, 
but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God 
for  us,"  Heb.  9:  23,  24.  The  true  sanctuary  is  already 
CLEANSED,  in  the  sense  in  which  that  word  is  used  in  the  epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  and  it  is  a  monstrous  mistake  to  confound 
the  two  words  together  as  used  in  Daniel  and  in  Hebrews. 

The  only  passage  adduced  in  support  of  the  interpretation, 
"  the  earth,"  is  in  Is.  60:  13,  '*  The  glory  of  Lebanon  shall 
come  unto  thee,  the  fir  tree,  the  pine  tree,  and  the  box  to- 
gether, to  beautify  the  place  of  my  sanctuary ;  and  I  will  make 
the  place  of  my  feet  glorious."  Now  to  whom  does  Isaiah 
address  this  ?  It  is  to  Zion,  as  the  context  shows,  "And  the 
Redeemer  shall  come  to  Zion," — "  and  they  shall  call  thee, 
The  city  of  the  Lord,  The  Zion  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel." 
Zion  was  God's  holy  hill,  Ps.  2:  6.  "  The  Lord  of  hosts 
dwelleth  in  mount  Zion,"  Is.  8:  18.  "  The  Lord  of  hosts 
shall  reign  in  mount  Zion,  and  in  Jerusalem,"  Is.  24:  23. 
The  error  in  applying  "  sanctuary  "  in  Is.  60:  13,  to  the  earthj 
arose  doubtless  from  confounding  it  with  Is.  66:  1,  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  The  heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my 
footstool."  But  so  the  sanctuary  is  also  called,  1  Chron.  28: 
2,  "  As  for  me  I  had  in  my  heart  to  build  an  house  of  rest 
for  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  for  the  footstool  of  our  God." 
We  come  back  then  to  what  is  asserted  in  verse  14,  of  the 
sanctuary — having  seen,  if  anything  in  the  world  can  be  seen, 
that  the  word  does  not,  and  cannot,  mean  "the  earth,"  or 
"the  Christian  church,"  in  verse  14,  nor  in  vs.  11,  13,  and 
11:  31,  mean  "  the  city  Rome,"  or  "  Paganism's  sanctuary," 
which  was  no  sanctuary  at  all ;  but  that  it  designates  God's 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  14.  81 

holy  temple  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  alone.  The  place  of  God's 
sanctuary  was  to  be  cast  down  ;  the  temple,  and  its  ministers, 
and  its  worshippers,  to  be  trodden  under  foot  for  2300  days. 
At  the  expiration  of  that  period,  the  sanctuary  should  be 
cleansed. 

The  2300  days  is,  in  the  original,  word  for  word,  evening 
morning  two  thousand  and  three  hundred.  It  is  a  manifest 
allusion  to  the  evening  and  morning  continual  burnt-offering, 
which  was  to  be  taken  away,  and  it  also  harmonizes  with  the 
>[ewish  mode  of  calling  the  evening  and  morning  one  day. 
So  long  were  the  predicted  calamities  to  last,  and  at  the  ex- 
piration of  this  period  *'  the  sanctuary  "  should  "  be  cleansed," 
or,  as  it  is  in  the  original,  be  made  right,  absolved  from  trans- 
gression, i.  e.  be  recovered  from  the  desolating  transgression ; 
the  declaration  doubtless  looking  back  to  the  word  "  trans- 
gression," in  the  preceding  verse.  The  sanctuary  which  had 
been  desecrated,  should  be  restored  to  its  former  state. 

We  have  seen  on  11:  32,  that  the  sanctuary  was  recovered 
from  the  desolating  transgression,  and  purified  from  its  pollu- 
tions by  Judas  Maccabeus,  in  the  year  148th  of  the  Seleuci- 
dae,  (B.  C.  165,)  the  9th  month,  Casleu,  and  25th  day  of  the 
month,  (about  December  15th — Casleu  beginning  in  our  No- 
vember and  ending  about  the  20th  of  our  December.)  From 
this  point,  then,  must  the  2300  days  be  reckoned  back.  Al- 
lowing 365  days  to  the  year,  we  have  a  period  of  6  years  and 
110  days  ;  or  allowing  360  days  to  the  year,  we  have  a  period 
of  6  years  and  140  days,  which  (reckoning  the  months  alter- 
nately of  29  and  30  days,)  reach  back  from  the  25th  of  the 
month  Casleu,  in  the  148th  year  of  the  Seleucidae,  (165  B. 
C.)  to  the  142nd  year  of  the  Seleucidae,  (171  B.  C.)  and  the 
third  of  the  month  Elul,  (about  August  24th,)  or  the  third  of 
the  month  Ab  (about  the  24th  of  July). 


82  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  8:   14. 


148  Sel.  era, 
142     «      « 

6  years. 

Casleu 

Marchesvan 

Tizri 

Elul  (to  the  3rd 

day)_ 

25  days, 
29 
30 
26 

110  days. 

Casleu 

iVI  arches  van 

Tizri 

Elul 

Ab  (to  the  3rd  day) 

25  days, 

2!) 

30 

2i) 

27 

140  days. 

Now  it  has  appeared  under  11:  32,  that  sometime  in  the 
142nd  year  of  the  Seleucidae,  (171  B.  C.)  Menelaus,  an  apo£» 
tate  from  the  religion  of  his  country,  accompanied  by  an 
armed  band,  with  the  authority  and  sanction  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  seized  the  office  of  high  priest ;  commenced  his 
career  by  causing  to  be  committed  a  sacrilege  which  was  at- 
tended with  the  pollution  of  the  sanctuary  by  blood  ;  procur- 
ed the  death  of  the  godly  Onias,  the  lawful  though  deposed 
high  priest ;  brought  on  a  wide-spread  and  thorough  apostasy 
of  the  Jews  from  their  religion,  and  probably  occasioned  even 
the  frequent  suspension  of  the  stated  morning  and  evening 
sacrifice,  inasmuch  as  the  priests  under  the  administration  of 
his  predecessor  Jason  had  begun  to  despise  the  duties  of  the 
temple,  and  neglect  the  sacrifices.  In  these  events,  there  is 
certainly  adequate  fulfilment  of  the  prediction  that  "  the  sanc- 
tuary and  the  host,"  should  "  be  trodden  under  foot."  The 
prophecy  in  this  chapter  does  not  circumscribe  the  events  by 
the  entire  and  final  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice;  which 
did  not  occur  until  168  B.  C.  But  it  speaks  of  injuries  and 
oppressions  in  a  manner  which  in  the  light  of  history  we  can 
perceive  both  includes  that  event,  and  more.  Those  injuries 
were  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  make  them  an  era  from  which 
to  reckon,  while  as  we  shall  see  on  chapters  vii,  and  xii,  there 
are  given  other  dates,  which  specifically  meet  the  final  sus- 
pension of  the  daily  sacrifice.  In  regard  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  desolating  transgressions  under  Menelaus,  though 
it  be  impossible  to  verify  the  exact  date  from  history ;  it  is 


INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  8:   14.  83 

enough  if  history  furnishes  us  with  a  year  in  the  reign  of  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes,  in  which  those  transgressions  took  place, 
and  there  is  sufficient  scope  for  the  2300  days  between  that 
year  and  the  year  in  which  the  sanctuary  was  cleansed. 
And  this  is  more  than  we  have  in  many  other  specifications 
of  time  mentioned  in  the  Bible — for  instance  the  date  of 
"  three  years  "  in  the  prediction  of  the  ruin  of  Moab,  Is.  16: 
14.*  Commencing,  then,  with  the  desecration  by  Menelaus, 
in  the  142nd  year  of  the  Seleucidae,  (171  B.  C.)  we  come 
down,  at  their  expiration  in  the  148th  year  of  the  Seleucidae, 
(165  B.  C.)  to  the  event  of  the  purification  and  dedication 
of  the  sanctuary  by  Judas  Maccabeus.  Then  was  the  sanc- 
tuary cleansed,  and  the  prophecy  fulfilled. 

Instead  of  the  number  2300,  some  have  divided  it,  consid- 
ering it  2300  times  of  sacrifice ;  and  as  there  were  two  sacri- 
fices each  day,  they  thus  reckon  it  1150  days.  Their  inter- 
pretation is  as  follows  :  The  1150  days,  reckoning  years  as 
lunar  years,  (354  days  to  the  year,)  and  adding  an  intercala- 
ry month  for  every  three  years,  would  be  just  three  years  and 
two  months ;  or,  omitting  the  intercalary  month,  would  be 
just  three  years  and  three  months.  They  consider  this  the 
exact  period  during  which  the  daily  sacrifice  was  taken  away. 
For  although  they  admit  that  Apollonius  arrived  at  Jerusa- 
lem in  the  month  of  June,  B.  C.  168,  (which  could  not  have 
been  but  little  short  of  six  months,  on  the  lowest  calculation, 
and  may  have  been  between  six  and  seven  months,  before  the 
final  act  of  desecration  on  the  25th  of  the  month  Casleu,) 
they  suppose  that  circumstances  required  considerable  inter- 
val of  time  before  he  effected  the  suppression  of  the  daily  sa- 

*  It  is  more,  certainly,  than  those  have,  who  fix  on-tte^ftr  A.  D. 
508,  as  the  time  of  the  abolition  of  the  pagan  sacrifices,  as  we  have 
seen  under  11:  31 ;  fiar,  they  have  no  authority  in  any  history  what- 
ever for  such  a  date.  And  yet  one  of  them  thus  speaks — "  It  is  not 
known  precisely  how  long  Antiochus  Epiphanes  oppressed  the  Jews. 
But  if  the  period  is  2300  literal  days,  those  who  thus  apply  it  are  bound 
to  show  a  literal  fulfilment." — Litch,  p.  78. 


84  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:   14. 

orifice.  Now  the  perusal  of  the  history  of  the  events  as  giv- 
en in  1  Mace.  1:  29 — 40,  and  2  Mace.  5:  24 — 26,  is  very  far 
from  making  an  impression  that  Apollonius  was  three  or 
four  months  executing  his  mission  to  interrupt  and  cut  off  the 
temple  worship.  Such  an  interpretation  has  certainly  but  a 
small  degree  of  probability  in  its  favor.  It  is  difficult,  more- 
over, to  reconcile  the  number  1150  with  other  specifications 
of  time  found  in  these  prophecies,  as  will  be  seen  on  chap, 
xii.  But  the  greatest  objection  is,  that  the  text  seems  natu- 
rally to  read  2300  periods  of  united  morning  and  evening, 
and  so  most  commentators  and  readers  feel  obliged  to  re- 
gard it. 

Some  interpreters,  as  Rosenmiiller,  disregard  both  the 
number  2300  and  the  1150,  as  exact  designations  of  time, 
and  consider  the  2300  as  a  definite  put  for  an  indefinite  num- 
ber. But  as  we  shall  see  that  the  other  numbers,  indisputa- 
bly many  of  them,  are  exact  designations  of  time,  why  should 
it  not  be  so  also  with  the  number  2300 1 

Instead  of  the  period  2300  days,  many  suppose  it  to  be 
2300  years,  and  they  call  the  da.ys  prophetic  days — days  be- 
ing taken  for  years.  But  against  this  mode  of  interpretation 
it  is  to  be  observed,  (1)  that  the  phraseology  in  8:  14,  is  dif- 
ferent from  any  passage  in  the  Bible  where  we  find  the  word 
days.  It  reads  indeed,  that  "  the  evening  and  the  morning 
were  the  first  day ;"  but  nowhere,  unless  it  be  in  this  chap- 
ter, do  we  find  the  phrase  "  evenings  and  mornings"  as  the 
synonyme  of  the  word  days,  and  substituted  in  its  place. 
If  then  any  example  could  be  found  in  Scripture,  where  days 
are  reckoned  as  years,  the  peculiarity  of  8:  14  is  sufficient  to 
exempt  it  from  the  rule.  But  (2)  the  authorities  which  are 
quoted  from'  the  Bible  to  sustain  such  a  mode  of  reckoning, 
do  not,  when  closely  examined,  give  the  least  support  to  it 
whatever.  One  passage  is  Ezek.  4:  6,  "  I  have  appointed 
thee  each  day  for  a  year."  These  days  of  Ezekiel  are  not 
prophetic  days,  in  the  sense  in  which  many  suppose ;  they 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:   14.  85 

show  no  established  mode  of  reckoning  time,  but  they  are 
emblematic  days.  The  prophet  was  directed  to  lie  so  many 
days  on  his  side,  and  was  told  that  as  many  days  as  he  should 
thus  lie,  just  so  many  years  should  Israel  and  Judah  be  pun- 
ished for  their  sins.  Another  passage  is  in  Numbers  14:  34, 
"each  day  for  a  year."  This  too  is  emblematic.  The  spies 
had  searched  the  land  forty  days,  and  Moses  was  commanded 
to  say  that  as  many  days  as  the  spies  were  searching  the 
land,  just  so  many  years  should  the  Israelites  wander  in  the 
wilderness — "each  day  for  a  year."  To  make  the  cases 
parallel,  and  to  have  ground  for  applying  either  of  the  fore- 
cited  passages  to  explain  this  in  Daniel,  it  ought  to  be  that 
Daniel  was  "  considering"  (verse  5)  these  things  for  2300 
days,  and  that  as  many  days  as  he  was  considering  them,  so 
many  years  was  the  vision  to  be  in  its  accomplishment. 

Those  who  make  the  2300  days  so  many  years,  are  divided 
in  their  opinion  as  to  when  the  years  commence.  Bishop 
Newton,  followed  by  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  and  some  others,  date 
them  from  the  rise  of  the  he-goat — about  336  B.  C. — which 
would  make  them  reach  down  to  about  A.  D.  2000 — when 
according  to  them,  Rome  is  to  be  destroyed,  the  Jews  re- 
stored, and  the  millennial  jubilee  of  universal  holiness  and 
peace  ushered  in.  Others,  commencing  with  the  re-peopling 
of  Jerusalem  by  Nehemiah  444  B.  C,  make  them  reach  down 
to  A.  D.  1856.  Mr.  William  Miller  and  those  who  adopt  his 
calculations,  commence  with  "  the  going  forth  of  the  com- 
mandment to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem,"  (for  their  authori- 
ty, and  how  much  support  it  has,  see  the  interpretation  of  chap. 
9:  24 — ^27,)  and  they  fix  the  termination  of  the  period  in  1843, 
when,  according  to  their  assertion,  this  present  earth  shall 
be  destroyed  with  fire,  and  the  final  judgment  take  place. 
We  have  seen  how  unauthorized  and  contradictory  of  sacred 
usage,  is  this  last  theory,  which  makes  the  cleansing  of  the 
sanctuary  the  destruction  of  the  world.  It  may  suffice  fur- 
ther to  say  on  all  these  calculations,  that  the  passage  reads, 
8 


86  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:   14. 

**  To  how  long  a  time  extends  the  vision  concerning  the  daily 
sacrifice,  and  the  desolating  transgression,  that  both  the  sanc- 
tuary and  the  host  shall  be  trodden  under  foot  ?"  The  period 
must  begin  with  the  giving  of  the  sanctuary  to  he  trodden  un- 
der foot.  The  disregard  of  what  lies  so  obviously  on  the  face 
of  the  passage,  vitiates  all  the  calculations  in  question. 

If  the  "  days"  could  be  reckoned  as  years,  then  being 
reckoned  from  the  *' transgression  to  give  both  the  sanctuary 
and  the  host  to  be  trodden  under  foot,"  they  must  reach 
down  to  about  A.  D.  2130,  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  declara- 
tion,— "then  shall  the  sanctuary  be  cleansed," — be  sought 
in  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem,  "  the  place  of  his  sanctuary," 
even  now  "trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles"  (Luke  21:  24) ; 
in  the  restoration  of  the  worship  of  the  temple,  not  indeed 
with  the  rites  of  Moses,  but  with  the  simplicity  of  Christ ;  in 
the  true  elevation  of  the  host,  the  lifting  up  of  the  Israel  of 
God,  no  longer  the  rejecters  of  their  Messiah,  but  at  last 
brought  in  with  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles,  Rom.  11:  25. 
That  the  Jews  will  become  a  Christian  people,  is  indeed  fore- 
told in  the  Scriptures  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
as  plainly  as  anything  ever  written  by  inspired  men.  That 
they  will  even  become  again  a  nation  in  Palestine,  where, 
being  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of  their  enemies,  they  may 
serve  God  without  fear,  in  holiness  and  righteousness,  seems 
an  event  alike  demanded  by  the  language  of  some  of  the 
plainest  prophecies,  and  among  the  indications  of  God's  pro- 
vidence. But  such  events  can  be  supported  here,  only  by 
considering  the  passage  as  typical,  as  indeed  the  ancient  fa- 
thers considered  that  part  which  relates  to  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes — making  him  a  type  of  Antichrist— vilnWe  they  also 
applied  the  whole  of  it  primarily  to  him.  But  there  is  no  more 
authority  to  consider  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  or  the  cleansing 
of  the  sanctuary,  typical,  than  there  is  so  to  consider  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, and  the  seventy  years  captivity,  and  the  restora- 
tion of  temple  worship  after  the  return  from  Babylon.     Anti- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8*.  15 19.  87 

ochus  was  a  type  indeed  of  all  the  great  bad  men  and  des- 
pots of  his  class;  and  in  this  sense  every  vile  person  is  a  type 
— a  representative  of  his  class. 

15  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  I,  even  I,  Daniel,  had  seen  the  vision, 
and  sought  for  the  meaning,  then  behold,  there  stood  before  me  as 

IQ  the  appearance  of  a  man.  And  1  heard  a  man's  voice  between 
the  hanks  o/Ulai,  which  called,  and  said,  Gabriel,  make  this  man 
to  understand  the  vision. 

While  Daniel  was  seeking  for  the  meaning  of  the  vision, 
Oabriel  appeared  before  him,  not  near,  but  at  some  little  dis- 
tance. Whether  the  angel  who  requests  Gabriel  to  commu- 
nicate the  meaning  of  the  vision  to  the  prophet,  was  one  of 
the  holy  ones  mentioned  in  verse  13 ;  whether  it  was,  as  the 
Jews  suppose,  Michael,  mentioned  in  chap,  x,  and  whether 
Gabriel  was  also  the  one  who  uttered  the  declaration  con- 
tained in  verse  14,  may  properly  enough  be  taken  in  the  af- 
firmative, though  of  course  there  is  only  conjecture  to  sup- 
port it. 

17  So  he  came  near  where  1  stood  :  and  when  he  came,  I  was  afraid, 
and  fell  upon  ray  face  :  but  he  said  unto  me.  Understand,  O  son 

18  of  man  :  for  at  the  time  of  the  end  shall  he  the  vision.  Now  as  he 
was  speaking  with  me,  I  was  in  a  deep  sleep  on  my  face  toward 

19  the  ground :  but  he  touched  me  and  set  me  upright.  And  he  said, 
Behold,  I  will  make  thee  know  v/hat  shall  be  in  the  last  end  of  the 
indignation  :  for  at  the  time  appointed  the  end  shall  he. 

The  phrase  "  upright "  in  verse  18,  is  the  same  in  the  origi- 
nal with  "  where  I  stood,"  in  verse  17 ;  except  that  in  v.  18 
it  has  the  preposition  upon  before  it,  and  reads  literally, 
caused  me  to  stand  upon  where  I  stood.  The  posture  of  Dan- 
iel when  the  angel  drew  near  to  him,  and  the  phraseology  in 
the  last  clause  of  v.  18,  further  shows,  (if  indeed  so  small  a 
circumstance  need  again  be  noticed,)  that  this  vision  was 
seen  by  the  prophet  waking  and  not  in  a  dream.  The  eifect 
of  the  angel's  approach  was  to  cause  him  to  fall  to  the  ground 


88  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  20 22. 

and  stupefy  him  with  awe,  so  that  he  became  insensible  in  the 
midst  of  the  angel's  communication.  But  roused  and  lifted 
up  by  the  angel,  he  again  heard  his  words. 

The  declarations,  "  at  the  time  of  the  end  shall  be  the 
vision," — "  I  will  make  thee  know  what  shall  be  in  the  last 
end  of  the  indignation  ;  for  at  the  time  appointed  the  end  shall 
be ;" — seem  to  imply  that  this  vision  looks  not  only  to  the 
end  of  the  calamities  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  but  further ; 
that  the  calamitous  events  here  narrated  are  to  be  in  the  last 
period  of  those  judgments  of  which  the  captivity  itself  was  a 
part,  and  which  would  be  succeeded  by  the  times  of  the  Mes- 
siah. See  under  7:  27.  2:  44.  12:  1. 

20  The  ram  which  thou  sawest  having  two  horns   arc  the  kings  of 

21  Media  and  Persia.     And  the  rough  goat  is  the  king  of  Grecia  :  and 
the  great  horn  that  is  between  his  eyes  is  the  first  king. 

See  on  vs.  3 — 7.  The  word  Graecia  is  in  the  original 
Javan^  who  was  the  son  of  Japheth,  and  settled  Ionia,  (Gen. 
10:  4,)  the  country  of  Homer,  and  a  name  designating  the 
whole  of  Greece.  The  word  "  kings"  in  verse  20,  and  "  king" 
in  the  first  clause  of  verse  21,  is  an  instance,  as  above  men- 
tioned, of  king  taken  for  kingdom.  The  epithet  *'  rough,"  or 
shaggy,  is  added  to  describe  more  graphically  Alexander's 
formidableness  and  strength.  He  is  called  the  first  king,  be- 
cause his  predecessors  had  only  Macedon  ;  he  was  the  first 
over  the  extended  empire  of  the  Greeks.  Or  the  first  king 
may  denote  the  first  in  point  of  eminence  and  glory. 

22  Now  that  being  broken,  whereas  four  stood  up  for  it,  four  king- 
doms shall  stand  up  out  of  the  nation,  but  not  in  his  power. 

It  deserves  to  be  noticed  that  the  prophecy  does  not  say 
expressly  that  the  four  horns  symbolize  four  kingdoms,  but 
it  presents  the  events  that  correspond  ;  it  says  that  four  king- 
doms shall  arise  out  of  the  nation,  i.  e.  of  which  Alexander 
the  great  horn  was  the  first  king.     Or  the  word  "  kingdoms" 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  23.  89 

may  merely  denote  reigns,  and  have  chief  respect  to  the  kings 
whose  reigns  are  thus  spoken  of.  Those  reigns  were  not 
with  the  power  and  glory  of  Alexander's.     See  on  11:  4,  and 

8:8. 

23  And  in  tiie  latter  time  of  their  kingdom,  when  the  transgressors 
are  come  to  the  full,  a  king  of  fierce  countenance,  and  understand- 
ing dark  sentences,  shall  stand  up. 

Here  the  "  little  horn  "  is  exchanged  for  the  word  "  king,^'' 
under  circumstances  that  leave  us  no  liberty  to  suppose  that 
nation  is  meant ;  and  the  interpretation  of  verses  3, 9,  in  which 
horn  was  considered  emblematical  not  of  a  kingdom,  but  of  a 
king,  is  confirmed.  The  portrait  of  a  king  of  fierce  counte- 
nance, and  understanding  dark  sentences,  (literally,  versed  in 
fraud,)  describes  Antiochus  still  more  graphically,  as  the  epi- 
thet rough  was  used,  the  better  to  describe  Alexander ;  and  it 
remarkably  corresponds  with  assertions  in  11: 23,  (first  clause,) 
24,  25,  27,  30,  44,  etc.  He  stood  at  the  height  of  his  pros- 
perity about  170  B.  C,  one  hundred  and  thirty-one  years  from 
the  division  of  the  kingdom  in  301  B.  C.  It  was  the  latter 
time  of  the  reign  of  the  four  horns.  For  from  the  year  170 
B.  C.  to  the  overthrow  of  Syria,  (see  on  2:  44,)  was  only  the 
space  of  105  years ;  and  Macedonia  was  added  to  the  Roman 
empire  166  B.  C,  and  Egypt,  the  last  of  them,  fell  not  long 
afi:er  Syria.  The  declaration  "  when  the  transgressors  are 
come  to  the  full,"  looks  back  to  verses  12,  13 — '*  on  account 
of  transgression," — "  transgression  of  desolation," — i.  e.  when 
the  impiety  of  many  of  the  Jews  was  as  a  cup  running  over, 
or,  (if  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  phrase  '^  with  transgression,^^ 
be  the  true  one,)  when  the  wickedness  of  those  four  nations 
was  about  reaching  its  height,  and  their  latter  time  was  fast 
running  out.  A  similar  expression  is  used  by  our  Savior, 
"  Fill  ye  up  then  the  measure  of  your  fathers,"  Matt.  23:  32. 

24  And  his  power  shall  be  mighty,  but  not  by  his  own  power  :  and 
he  shall  destroy  wonderfully,  and  shall  prosper,  and  practice,  and 

8* 


90  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  24,  25. 

25  shall  destroy  the  mighty  and  the  holy  people.  And  tlirough  his 
policy  also  he  shall  cause  craft  to  prosper  in  his  hand  ;  and  he  shall 
magnify  himself  in  his  heart,  and  by  peace  shall  destroy  many : 
he  shall  also  stand  up  against  the  Prince  of  princes  ;  but  he  shall 
be  broken  without  hand. 

That  he  became  potent  not  by  his  own  inherent  might,  see 
on  11:  21,  23.  It  was  even  by  the  aid  of  apostate  Israelites, 
that  he  succeeded  in  his  designs  upon  that  nation,  11:  30. 
His  resources  were  those  of  cunning,  and  fraud,  and  flattery ; 
by  these  he  prevailed,  as  shown  in  the  instances  of  his  acces- 
sion to  the  throne,  and  his  conduct  in  the  war  with  Ptolemy, 
and  his  proceedings  against  the  Jews.  Fraud  prospered  in 
his  hand  through  his  superior  worldly  policy  and  foresight, 
and  enabled  him  to  destroy  wonderfully,  though  he  was  not 
in  himself  a  truly  mighty  man. — "The  mighty  and  the  holy 
people,"  is  in  the  original,  literally,  "the  mighty  and  the  peo- 
ple the  saints."  They  seem  to  be  distinguished — the  "  mighty" 
denoting  other  people  beside  the  Israelites,  and  the  Israelites 
designated  as  the  people  the  saints.  Comp.  the  declarations, 
Fear  the  Lord,  ye  his  saints,  Ps.  34:  9.  Also  11:  17,  32,  33, 
and  12:  7.  "  The  people  the  saints,"  may  distinguish  the  true 
Israelites,  the  faithful  to  their  religion,  from  the  false.  The 
"  peace"  by  which  he  destroyed  many,  may  denote  the  im- 
punity, the  safety  to  himself,  with  which  he  did  it,  and  may 
have  been  the  cause  of  his  self-complacency  ("  shall  magnify 
himself  in  his  heart.)"  Or  it  may  denote  the  secure,  unsus- 
pecting condition  in  which  those  were  on  whom  he  came  as 
a  beast  of  prey  springs  on  his  unwary  victim.  The  phrase 
"  Prince  of  princes,"  is  the  same  in  effect  with  "  prince  of 
the  host,"  and  "God  of  gods,"  8:  11,  and  11:  36.  Comp.  1 
Tim.  6:  15. — The  mode  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes'  death  is 
here  strongly  given.  There  is  no  room  for  doubt  in  regard  to 
the  manner  of  his  death,  as  there  is  respecting  Antiochus  the 
Great,  11:  19.  He  died  not  by  poison,  nor  by  the  hands  of 
others,  but  an  unseen  power  smote  him  to  the  earth,  11:  45. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  26,  27.  91 

The  "little  horn"  was  "broken," — his  very  race  was  de- 
stroyed, as  was  Alexander's,  soon  after  his  death ;  (see  on 
12:  1 ;)  but  the  "great  horn "  whence  he  branched  forth  yet 
stood,  and  the  descendants  of  Seleucus  still  sat  upon  the 
throne. 

26  And  the  vision  of  the  evening  and  the  morning  vt'hich  was  told 
is  true :  wherefore  shut  thou  up  the  vision ;  for  it  shall  he  for 
many  days. 

"The  evening  and  the  morning"  is  the  same  phrase  with 
that  found  in  verse  14,  and  there  translated  "  days,"  except 
that  in  verse  26  the  article  is  used  to  show  what  evenings  and 
mornings  were  meant.  The  vision  may  be  thus  named,  be- 
cause though  other  events  are  described  besides  the  desecra- 
tion of  the  temple  etc.,  they  are  narrated  chiefly  as  introduc- 
tory to  that.  Many  days  were  to  elapse  before  that  vision 
should  come  to  pass ;  for  the  prophet  had  this  vision  in  the  year 
553  B.  C,  and  the  series  of  desecrations  of  the  temple  com- 
menced in  171  B.  C. — a  period  of  382  years.  Daniel  is  di- 
rected to  shut  up  the  vision,  when  he  had  recorded  it,  as  a  sym- 
bol that  the  words  would  be  in  effect  sealed,  until  understood 
in  the  light  of  those  times  to  which  the  vision  related.  But 
it  was  to  be  relied  on,  and  should  certainly  come  to  pass. 

27  And  I  Daniel  fainted,  and  was  sick  certain  days ;  afterwards  1 
rose  up,  and  did  the  king's  business.  And  I  was  astonished  at  the 
vision,  but  none  understood  it. 

The  effect  of  so  exciting  a  scene,  and  of  the  announcement 
of  such  events  yet  to  take  place,  after  his  native  city  and  his 
countrymen  had  already  suffered  so  much,  was  too  great  for 
the  physical  energies  of  the  prophet,  and  his  strength  was  ut- 
terly exhausted.  He  was  hindered  from  attending  to  the 
king's  business  on  which  he  came  to  Shushan,  being  for  some 
days  confined  to  his  couch  by  great  debility.  But  "  none  un- 
derstood," [the  matter,]  none  knew  the  cause  of  his  sickness. 


92  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  8:  27. 

He  communicated  at  that  time  the  vision  to  no  one.  Possi- 
bly, though  not  most  naturally,  the  last  clause  of  the  verse 
may  mean,  that  when  he  recovered  so  as  to  be  able  to  attend 
to  the  king's  business,  no  one,  to  whom  he  communicated 
the  vision,  understood  its  meaning. 

The  interpretation  thus  given  of  the  vision  recorded  in  ch. 
viii,  should  not  be  dismissed  without  noticing  the  confirma- 
tion it  receives  from  Josephus.  "  Daniel  hath  informed  us," 
(says  the  Jewish  historian,  Antiq.  B.  x.  ch.  11,  sec.  7,)  "  that 
God  interpreted  the  appearance  of  this  vision  after  the  fol- 
lowing manner :  He  said  that  the  ram  signified  the  kingdoms 
of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  and  the  horns  those  kings  that 
were  to  reign  in  them ;  and  that  the  last  horn  signified  the 
last  king,  and  that  he  should  exceed  all  the  kings  in  riches 
and  glory :  that  the  he-goat  signified  that  one  should  come 
and  reign  from  the  Greeks,  who  should  twice  fight  with  the 
Persian,  and  overcome  him  in  battle,  and  should  receive  his 
entire  dominion :  that  by  the  great  horn  which  sprang  out 
of  the  forehead  of  the  he-goat  was  meant  the  first  king ;  and 
that  the  springing  up  of  four  horns  upon  its  falling  off,  and 
the  conversion  of  every  one  of  them  to  the  four  quarters  of 
the  earth,  signified  the  successors  that  should  arise  after  the 
death  of  the  first  king,  and  the  partition  of  the  kingdom  among 
them ;  and  that  they  should  be  neither  his  children,  nor  of 
his  kindred,  that  should  reign  over  the  habitable  earth  for 
many  years ;  and  that  from  among  them  should  arise  a  cer- 
tain king  that  should  overcome  our  nation  and  their  laws, 
and  should  take  away  their  political  government,  and  should 
spoil  the  temple,  and  forbid  the  sacrifices  to  be  offered  for 
three  years'  time.  And  indeed  it  so  came  to  pass  that  our 
nation  suffered  these  things  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  ac- 
cording to  Daniel's  vision,  and  what  he  wrote  many  years  be- 
fore they  came  to  pass." 

In  remarks  preceding  this  quotation,  in  the  same  section, 
Josephus  confounds  events  noticed  in  the  vision  recorded  in 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  VII.  93 

chaps.  X,  xi,  and  xii,  with  those  of  the  vision  in  chap,  viii ;  for 
he  speaks  of  the  phenomenon  of  Gabriel's  appearance,  and  the 
flight  of  Daniel's  companions,  (10:  6,  7,)  as  happening  when 
Daniel  saw  the  visions  of  the  ram,  etc. ;  and  that  the  higher 
horn  (in  chap,  viii.)  was  the  king  who  "  should  exceed  all  the 
kings  in  riches  and  glory,"  (11:  2.)  He  also  says  nothing 
of  the  2300  days ;  but  he  speaks  not  only  of  the  "  three  years," 
but  also  of  the  number  "  1296  days,"  as  the  period  during 
which  the  little  horn  should  "  forbid  the  sacrifices  to  be  offer- 
ed,"— a  period  which  he  doubtless  takes  from  12:  11,  viz. 
1290  days — which  will  be  explained  in  the  proper  place. 
But  this  only  shows  that  the  two  visions,  though  twenty  years 
apart,  stood  in  the  historian's  mind  as  mainly  one  and  the 
same — as  indeed  they  are,  with  the  exceptions  mentioned  in 
the  introduction  to  the  interpretation  of  this  chapter. 


SECTION  III. 

INTERPRETATION  OF  CHAP.  VII. 

THE  FOUR  BEASTS,  THE  LITTLE  HORN  OF  THE  FOURTH,  AND 
THE  REIGN  OF  THE  SON  OF  MAN. 

This  chapter  is  an  expansion  of  the  prophecy  contained  in 
chap.  ii.  All  commentators  so  regard  it.  Says  Bishop  New- 
ton, "  What  was  revealed  unto  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  se- 
cond year  of  his  reign  concerning  the  four  great  empires  of 
the  world,  was  again  revealed  unto  Daniel,  (chap,  vii,)  with 
some  enlargements  and  additions."*  The  study  of  this  fuller 
vision,  therefore,  will  more  readily  introduce  us  to  the  mean- 

*  Prophecies,  p.  201. 


94  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  VII. 

ing  of  the  events  predicted,  and  prepare  us  to  understand, 
more  satisfactorily,  the  prophecy  as  recorded  in  chap.  ii. 

On  comparing  chap.  vii.  with  those  already  examined — 
chaps,  xi.  and  viii. — we  see  a  resemblance  in  part,  and  we 
see  also  that  chap.  vii.  contains  the  prediction  of  events  not 
mentioned  in  the  other  two.  The  resemblance  is  between  what 
is  said  of  the  second  beast  in  chap,  vii,  and  the  ram  in  chap, 
viii,  and  the  three  kings  of  Persia  in  chap,  xi;  between  what 
is  said  of  the  third  beast  in  chap,  vii,  and  the  he-goat  in  chap, 
viii,  and  the  mighty  king  in  chap,  xi ;  between  what  is  said 
of  the  little  horn  in  chap,  vii,  and  the  little  horn  in  chap,  viii, 
and  the  *^  vile  person"  in  chap.  xi.  The  things  not  men- 
tioned in  chaps,  viii.  and  xi,  which  are  found  in  chap,  vii,  are 
the  first  beast,  and  that  kingdom,  which,  arising  after  the 
others  symbolized  by  the  four  beasts,  should  never  be  de- 
stroyed. Respecting  this  fifth  kingdom,  commentators  (with 
only  one  or  two  exceptions,  which  will  be  noticed  in  the  pro- 
per place),  are  agreed  that  it  is  the  kingdom  of  Christ ;  and 
this  interpretation  seems  to  compel  the  assent  of  the  reader. 
But  there  is  not  so  general  agreement  as  to  the  fourth  king- 
dom, and  the  object  designated  by  the  little  horn.  Most  of 
the  early  christian  writers,  and  some  of  the  Jewish,  consid- 
ered the  fourth  kingdom  to  be  the  Roman,  and  the  little 
horn  to  be  literally  and  primarily  Antichrist ;  though,  as  be- 
fore observed,  the  early  christian  writers  regarded  the  little 
horn  in  chap,  viii,  as  literally  and  primarily  Antiochus  Epipha- 
nes,  and  only  a  type  of  Antichrist.  Bishop  Newton,  Adam 
Clarke,  etc.  and  those  who  suppose  the  world  will  end  in 
1843,  go  along  with  the  ancients  in  the  interpretation  of 
chap,  vii,  while  feeling  compelled  to  disregard  the  typical  in- 
terpretation, they  leave  them  on  chaps,  viii.  and  xi,  and  in  the 
interpretation  of  chap,  viii,  and  the  latter  part  of  chap,  xi,  throw 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  wholly  out,  as  we  have  seen.  Others 
among  the  moderns,  who  go  along  with  the  ancients  on  chaps. 
xi.  and  viii,  leave  them  on  chap,  vii,  and  find  the  fourth  king- 


OF  Tli£ 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:   1,  1^^   -^  05' 


n 


dom  in  that  of  Alexander's  successors,  particularly  Syria  and 
Egypt,  and  the  little  horn  in  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  While 
interpreters  thus  range  under  two  classes,  in  respect  to  the 
meaning  of  the  fourth  kingdom  in  chap,  vii,  there  is  by  no 
means  perfect  agreement  in  each  class  by  itself,  in  the  mode 
of  explaining  what  is  said  of  that  fourth  kingdom.  In  the 
midst  of  so  much  diversity,  it  may  be  presumptuous  to  feel 
any  confidence  in  guiding  the  reader  to  satisfactory  and  sure 
results.  But  we  come  to  this  chapter  now,  with  the  help  of 
chaps,  xi.  and  viii,  and  with  the  almost  universal  assent  of 
modern  interpreters  that  the  little  horn  is  the  same  king,  or 
the  same  dynasty  of  kings,  both  in  chaps,  vii.  and  viii ;  that 
they  are  the  same  exploits  mentioned  in  chaps.  11:  31 — 36, 
in  8:  JO — 12,  and  in  7:  11,  21,  25.  So  affirm  both  classes 
of  interpreters  above  mentioned,  and  they  but  affirm  what  it 
requires  no  uncommon  sagacity  to  see  to  be  the  truth.  If 
the  reader,  then,  has  accepted  the  results  of  the  interpretation 
of  chaps,  xi.  and  viii,  he  has  a  clew  to  guide  him  through 
this  more  difficult  prophecy ;  and  coming  from  the  plain  to 
the  more  obscure,  from  the  more  expanded  vision  of  the  little 
horn,  and  the  kingdom  with  which  it  was  connected,  to  this 
more  sententious  and  enigmatical,  he  will,  even  though  not 
all  obscurity  be  removed,  (as  it  is  hoped  it  will  be,)  attain  to 
a  satisfactory  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  chap.  vii. 

1  In  the  first  year  of  Belshazzar  king  of  Babylon,  Daniel  had  a 
dream  and  visions  of  his  head  upon  his  bed :  then  he  wrote  the 
dream,  and  told  the  sum  of  the  matters. 

See  on  8:  1.  The  use  of  the  third  person  when  a  prophet 
speaks  of  himself,  is  quite  common,  Comp.  10:  1.  Is.  18:  1 — 
4.  Rev.  1:  1,  2.  The  visions  which  he  now  had,  and  the 
summary  (or,  as  it  is  in  the  original,  heads)  of  which  he  re- 
lates, were  not  when  he  was  awake  and  standing,  as  in  chap, 
viii,  but  in  a  dream  and  on  his  couch. 

2  Daniel  spake  and  said,  1  saw  in  my  vision  by  night,  and  behold, 
the  four  winds  of  the  heaven  strove  upon  the  great  sea. 


96  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  3,  4. 

"  The  great  sea"  was  the  Mediterranean,  which  lies  behind 
Palestine  on  the  west,  and  was  so  called  from  the  lesser  seas, 
or  lakes,  such  as  the  Salt  (or  Dead)  Sea,  Gen.  14:  3,  and  the 
Sea  of  Galilee  or  Tiberias,  John  6:  1.  The  rushing  forth  of 
the  four  winds  of  heaven  together  on  the  sea,  is  emblematic 
of  civil  commotions  and  revolutions.  The  Mediterranean  is 
chosen  as  the  place  of  scene,  because  it  was  a  fit  emblem, 
from  its  greatness,  of  the  events  that  were  to  happen. 

3  And  four  great  beasts  came  up  from  the  sea,  diverse  one  from 

4  another.  The  first  was  like  a  lion,  and  had  eagles'  wings  ;  1  be- 
held till  the  wings  thereof  were  plucked,  and  it  was  lifted  up  from 
the  earth,  and  made  stand  upon  the  feet  as  a  man,  and  a  man's 
heart  was  given  to  it. 

While  the  hurricanes  and  whirlwinds  were  raging  on  the 
great  sea,  these  four  emblematic  beasts  rose  in  succession  as 
to  fit  music ;  they  were  born  in  the  midst  of  wars  and  com- 
motions.* The  explanation  is  given  in  verse  17,  that  these 
four  great  beasts  represent  four  kings,  or  kingdoms;  the 
word  "  king"  being  here  used  by  metonyme  for  kingdom^  as 
in  8:  21.  See  also  7:  23,  "  The  fourth  beast  shall  be  the 
fourth  kingdom  upon  earth." 

*  Such  fabulous  monsters  as  the  lion  with  two  wings,  and  the  leo- 
pard with  four  wings  and  four  heads,  were  not  unusual  emblems  among 
the  ancient  nations,  and  they  have  some  kindred  with  the  modern 
heraldry.  It  is  said  that  winged  lions  have  been  found  among  the  ru- 
ins of  Persepolis.  There  is  also  the  Egyptian  sphinx^  a  creature  with 
a  female  human  head  on  the  body  of  a  lion,  always  crouched  down, 
with  its  fore  paws  stretching  forward.  One  of  these  statues  has  been 
removed  to  Paris,  and  is  twenty-two  feet  long,  made  out  of  a  block  of 
red  granite.  Another,  near  Gizeh,  recently  uncovered  from  the  sands 
in  which  it  was  embedded,  is  about  150  feet  long  and  sixty-three  feet 
high — the  body  is  made  out  of  one  block  of  stone ;  the  paws,  which 
are  extended  fifty  feet  in  front,  are  made  of  masonry.  The  metaphor- 
ical designation  of  lions,  eagles,  leopards,  and  bears  is  often  applied 
in  the  Bible  to  the  nations  that  oppressed  Jerusalem,  Jer.  5:  6.  Ezek. 
17:  3,  etc. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  3,  4.  97 

Without  question,  the  first  kingdom  was  the  Chaldean. 
This  monarchy  had  its  origin  in  revolutions,  and  grew  great 
by  wars  and  conquests  and  spoil.  It  first  sprung  out  of  the 
Assyrian  empire,  which  had  existed  about  1300  years,  when 
its  unity  was  broken  about  747  B.  C,  and  it  became  two 
kingdoms — one  under  Arbaces,  or  Tiglath-Pileser,  (2  Kings 
16:  7,)  whose  capital  was  Nineveh,  and  who  was  called  the 
king  of  Assyria;  the  other  under  Belesus  or  Nabonassar, 
(supposed  by  many  to  be  the  Baladan  mentioned  in  2  Kings 
20:  12,)  who  had  Babylon,  and  was  called  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon, or  Chaldea.  An  earlier  Assyrian  king  is  mentioned  in 
the  Scriptures — Pul — about  770  B.  C. ;  but  it  was  before  the 
division  of  the  kingdom.  In  680  B.  C,  Assyria  under  Esar- 
haddon,  (2  Kings  19:  37,)  the  third  in  descent  and  suc- 
cession from  Tiglath-Pileser,  seized  Babylon  during  an  in- 
terregnum, and  re-united  Assyria  and  Chaldea.  In  626  B. 
C,  Nabopolassar,  a  general  in  the  Assyrian  army,  seized 
Babylon,  erected  his  throne  there  as  king  of  Babylon,  and 
the  unity  of  the  Assyrian  kingdom  was  again  broken.  In 
612  B.  C,  Nabopolassar  entered  into  an  alliance  with  Asty- 
ages  king  of  Media,  (father  of  Darius  I,)  and  destroyed  Nin- 
eveh, and  thus  again  united  the  Assyrian  and  Chaldean  em~ 
pires ;  Babylon  being  the  metropolis,  with  Syria  and  Judea 
among  its  provinces.*  In  610  B.  C,  Pharaoh-Necho,  king 
of  Egypt,  jealous  of  the  consolidated  power  of  Nabopolas- 
sar, waged  war  against  him,  proceeded  as  far  as  Carche- 
mish  on  the  Euphrates,  one  third  the  way  between  Damas- 
cus of  Syria,  and  Babylon,  obtained  a  victory  over  the  As- 
syrian army,  and  returning  through  Judea,  made  it  tribu- 
tary.     Nabopolassar  rallied  his  forces,  and  having  associ- 

*  According  to  Robinson  in  Calmet,  and  Encyc.  Amer.,  it  was  As- 
tyages,  (or  Cyaxares  1,)  who  sought  the  help  of  Nabopolassar  against 
Nineveh,  and  Assyria  became  a  Median  province,  Art.  Media,  p.  667. 
For  as  graphic  and  sublime  a  picture  as  pen  has  ever  painted,  see 
the  prophet  Nahum's  description  of  the  ruin  of  Nineveh,  chaps.  1 — 3. 

9 


^  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  3,  4. 

ated  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar  vvitli  him  in  the  sovereignty, 
sent  him  to  recover  the  losses  recently  sustained.  Nebuchad- 
nezzar was  successful,  and  after  an  absence  of  about  tvv^o 
years,  w^as  suddenly  called  home  by  the  death  of  his  father. 
He  became  the  most  powerful  monarch  of  his  times.  Under 
him,  as  well  in  his  subsequent  reign,  as  in  his  previous  com- 
mand of  the  army,  the  empire  showed  the  strength  and 
courage  of  the  lion,  and  advanced  to  dominion  with  the  swift 
and  far  flight  of  the  eagle.  Tributary  to  it  were  not  only 
Judah  and  Syria,  but  also  Tyre,  Sidon,  Arabia  and  Egypt. 
The  prophet  Habakkuk  thus  describes  it,  1:6 — 8,  "Lol 
raise  up  the  Chaldeans,  that  bitter  and  hasty  nation,  which 
shall  march  through  the  breadth  of  the  land,  to  possess  the 
dwelling  places  that  are  not  theirs.  They  are  terrible  and 
dreadful :  their  judgment,  and  their  dignity  shall  proceed  of 
themselves.  Their  horses  also  are  swifter  than  the  leopards, 
and  are  more  fierce  than  the  evening  wolves:  and  their 
horsemen  shall  come  from  far  ;  they  shall  fly  as  the  eagle 
that  hasteth  to  eat."  Under  Nebuchadnezzar's  successors, 
the  empire  began  to  decline.  Its  "  wings  were  plucked,"  its 
power  to  make  far  conquests  gone;  and  it  was  deprived  of 
its  richest  provinces.  It  "  was  lifted  up  from  the  earth" — 
this  lion,  once  so  furious,  became  enervated,  grew  tame,  and 
could  now  be  handled.*  "  A  man's  heart  was  given  to  it" — 
its  wild,  furious  disposition  had  departed,  it  was  no  longer 
the  king  of  the  beasts  of  prey,  but  timid,  Comp.  Ps.  9:  20, 
"  Put  them  in  fear,  O  Lord ;  that  the  nations  may  know  them- 
selves to  be  but  men."  Chaldea  was  no  longer  the  invading, 
conquering  nation  it  once  was,  but  became  luxurious  and  in- 

*  Bishop  Newton  assigns  to  the  verb  "lifted  up,"  the  meaning 
taken  away  from  the  earth.  But  this  the  word  will  not  bear.  It  is  the 
same  word  found  in  4:  34 — "  lifted  up  mine  eyes."  There  is  also  the 
marginal  reading  in  our  Bibles,  "  The  wings  thereof  were  plucked 
wherewith  it  was  lifted  up" — i.  e.  on  its  career  of  conquests.  But  this 
is  unsupported  in  the  original. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7*.  5.  99 

nctive,  and  afraid  to  meet  its  foes,  until  at  last  the  nation 
shut  itself  up  within  the  walls  of  Babylon  against  the  Medo- 
Persian  army  under  Cyrus.  And  here,  while  its  monarch 
and  a  thousand  of  its  nobles  were  revelling  in  the  palace  at 
a  banquet,  (chap,  v,)  and  the  nation  was  secure,  not  in  the 
consciousness  of  valor,  but  only  in  the  strength  of  their  walls, 
and  the  abundance  of  their  provisions,  Babylon  was  entered 
at  dead  of  night  by  the  well-known  expedient  of  turning  the 
Euphrates,  which  ran  through  the  city,  out  of  its  course,  and 
marching  up  the  bed  of  the  river  into  the  city. 

Possibly  the  last  clauses  may  mean,  as  some  suppose,  that 
Nebuchadnezzar,  who  once  walked  in  pride,  was  afterwards 
abased  by  the  King  of  heaven,  chap.  4:  28 — 37 ;  or  that  the 
Chaldeans,  subdued  by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  became  more 
gentle  and  humane.  But  these  do  not  seem  adequately  to 
express  the  symbol. 

5  And  behold  another  beast,  a  second,  like  to  a  bear,  and  it  raised  up 
itself  on  one  side,  and  It  had  tluee  ribs  in  the  mouth  of  it  .between 
tlie  teeth  of  it :  and  they  said  thus  unto  it,  Arise,  devour  much  flesh. 

The  Medo-Persian  empire  is  here  well  represented,  by  the 
bear,  an  animal  strong,  voracious,  and  savage.  It  was  less 
noble  and  lofty  than  the  Chaldean,  as  the  bear  is  inferior  to 
the  lion.  On  the  dissolution  of  the  Assyrian  empire  in  747 
B.  C,  Media,  which  had  been  a  province  of  Assyria  five  hun- 
dred and  twenty  years,  still  remained  so  until  it  revolted  from 
the  king  of  Nineveh,  7C9  B.  C,  and  under  Dejoces  became 
a  distinct  kingdom.  But  little  is  known  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  Persia  arose  to  independence ;  but  it  is  supposed 
that  having  been  a  province  of  Assyria,  it  revolted  as  did 
Media,  and  became  independent,  and  that  Cambyses,  the 
father  of  Cyrus,  was  its  earliest  king.  The  union  of  these 
two  kingdoms  has  already  been  noticed  under  11:  1.  It  took 
place  after  four  kings,  viz.  Dejoces,  Phraortes,  Cyaxares  I, 
and  Cyaxares  II,  had  sat  on  the  throne  of  Media ;  and  the 


100  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  5. 

Medo-Persian  nation,  like  the  Chaldean,  rose  to  its  height 
amidst  wars  and  commotions.  The  ancient  historians  speak 
of  the  cruelty  of  the  Persians,  as  excessive  and  infamous. 
And  the  prophet  Isaiah,  in  predicting  their  invasion  of  Baby- 
Ion  says,  "  Behold  I  will  stir  up  the  Medes  against  them. 
Their  bows  shall  dash  the  young  men  to  pieces ;  and  they 
shall  have  no  pity  on  the  fruit  of  the  womb ;  their  eye  shall 
not  spare  children,"  13:  17,  18.  Its  posture,  described  in 
the  phrase  "  lifted  up  itself  on  one  side,"  or,  as  it  may  be 
translated,  stood  up  one  aide,  and  its  holding  three  ribs  in  its 
mouth,  have  the  following  facts  in  history  to  correspond  with 
and  explain  them.  Before  Babylon  was  taken,  Belshazzar, 
who  felt  his  danger  from  Cyrus,  went  for  aid  to  Croesus  king 
of  Lydia — the  monarch  so  famous  for  his  riches  as  to  have 
occasioned  the  saying,  "  rich  as  Croesus."  Having  engaged 
Croesus  to  lead  a  large  army  against  Cyrus,  Belshazzar  re- 
turned to  Babylon.  Croesus  was  defeated  by  the  Medo-Per- 
sian army,  driven  back  into  Sardis,  and  finally  compelled  to 
surrender  to  Cyrus,  548  B.  C,  who  then  became  master  of 
Lydia  and  almost  all  Asia  Minor.  From  the  conquest  of 
Lydii),  he  marched  into  Syria  and  Arabia,  and  thence  to  Up- 
per Asia,  and  thence  to  Babylon,  which  having  taken,  he 
placed  his  uncle  Cyaxares  on  its  throne.  There,  then,  the 
bear  stood,  in  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans,  in  Babylon  as  its 
first  seat  of  power  and  metropolis,  on  ground  which  was  on 
one  side  of  Media  and  Persia,  its  original  domain ;  and  the 
three  ribs  in  its  mouth  were  the  tokens  of  those  countries 
which  had  fallen  a  victim  to  its  voracity,  viz.  Babylon  and 
Lydia  on  the  west,  Arabia  on  the  south-west,  and  upper  Asia 
on  the  north ;  Compare  the  vision  in  8:  4,  "  I  saw  the  ram 
pushing  westward,  and  northward,  and  southward," — the 
plundered  countries  lying  in  those  three  quarters  being  deno- 
ted by  the  "three  ribs." 

Some  explain  the  posture  of  the  bear  as  denoting  that  the 
Medes  and  Persians  dwelt  on  one  side,  on  the  east  of  the 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  6.  101 

Babylonians ;  that  the  empire  arose  on  the  borders  of  Chal- 
dea.  Retaining  somewhat  of  this  idea,  the  symbol  may  further 
express  the  fact,  that  Cyrus  and  his  successors  made  Susa  of 
Persia,  and  Ecbatana  of  Media,  alternately  the  seats  of  gov- 
ernment ;  and  the  empire  thus  stood  by  one  side  of  the  an- 
cient Babylonian,  and  made  its  conquests  westward  into 
Babylon,  Asia  Minor  and  Syria,  northward  into  Armenia, 
and  southward  into  Egypt — the  latter  being  spoiled  by  Cam- 
byses,  son  of  Cyrus,  as  noticed  under  11:  8.  Most  explain 
the  three  ribs  as  denoting  Lydia,  Babylon  and  Egypt.  But 
the  Medo-Persian  nation  did  not  confine  its  depredations  to 
those  three  nations.  Another  explanation  still  of  the  three 
ribs  is  given — that  they  denote  the  three  nations  of  Media, 
Persia  and  Babylonia,  which  Cyrus  and  his  successors  ob- 
tained. But  this  last  does  not  adequately  express  the  symbol, 
because  Media  and  Persia  were  properly  the  beast  itself,  not 
two  of  the  ribs  in  the  beast's  mouth : — The  phrase  "  and  they 
said,"  is  often  used  simply  for  it  teas  said,  i.  e.  such  was  its 
commission,  such  was  the  work  it  was  to  da 

6  After  this  I  beheld,  and  lo  another,  like  a  leopard,  which  had  up- 
on the  back  of  it  four  wings  of  a  fowl ;  the  beast  had  also  four  heads; 
and  dominion  was  given  to  it. 

The  leopard,  a  nobler  animal  than  the  bear,  inferior  to  the 
lion  in  stature  and  strength,  but  beautiful,  active,  vigorous, 
fierce,  and  not  afraid  to  attack  the  king  of  beasts,  is  a  re- 
markably appropriate  emblem  of  the  Greek  empire  under  Al- 
exander. Some  have  found  a  correspondence  of  the  spots  of 
the  leopard,  in  the  motley  nations  of  which  the  empire  was 
composed ;  others  in  the  diverse  dispositions  of  Alexander, 
at  times  merciful  and  then  cruel,  temperate  and  drunken, 
self-possessed  and  hurried  away  by  passion.  But  it  would 
seem  as  wise  to  find  something  to  answer  to  the  sleek  skin  of 
the  leopard,  as  to  the  spots.  The  four  wings  on  the  back  in- 
9* 


102  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7*.  6. 

dicate  remarkable  speed  of  conquest — double  of  that  which 
characterized  the  empire  of  Babylon,  8:  5. 

The  four  heads  seem  to  correspond  with  the  four  wings, 
and  belong,  as  do  the  wings,  to  the  empire  under  Alexander. 
As  the  symbol  of  the  leopard  corresponds  to  that  of  the  he- 
goat  with  the  conspicuous  horn,  which  without  question  was 
intended  to  designate  Alexander's  kingdom,  so  must  we  seek 
for  the  four  heads  in  Alexander's  kingdom  alone,  before  it 
was  divided.  We  are  not  to  consider  them  separate  from 
him  any  more  than  the  four  wings ;  and  the  four  wings  in- 
disputably denote  Alexander's  rapid  conquests,  not  the  con- 
quests of  his  successors.  The  heads,  then,  may  denote  the 
four  main  divisions  of  his  army  under  the  four  generals  Ptol- 
emy, Seleucus,  Philip  and  Antigonus ;  or  more  probably 
the  four  principal  heads  of  his  empire,  viz.  Greece,  Egypt, 
Syria  and  Persia,  Comp.  Rev.  17:  9,  "  The  seven  heads  are 
seven  mountains,  on  which  the  woman  sitteth." 

From  some  resemblance  between  this  symbol,  and  that  of 
the  four  horns  which  arose  in  the  place  of  the  conspicuous 
horn  of  the  he-goat,  most  interpreters  have  pronounced  the 
two  symbols  one  and  the  same.  But  the  difference  is  greater 
than  the  resemblance.  The  four  horns  arose  not  until  after 
the  great  horn  was  broken ;  but  here  is  the  one  beast  un- 
changed in  any  part.  Besides,  if  the  four  heads  are  the  same 
with  the  four  horns ;  if  they  denote  those  who  reigned  over 
his  empire  after  his  death,  then  what  in  the  emblem  of  the 
leopard  denotes  Alexander  ?  Take  away  the  four  heads, 
which  some  so  confidently  affirm  represents  Alexander's 
successors,  then  there  is  nothing  to  represent  Alexander,  but 
a  beast  without  a  head.  There  can  be  no  consistent  inter- 
pretation of  this  emblem  except  one  which  makes  it  represent 
the  Greek  Empire  under  Alexander  alone,  or  one  which 
leaving  out  Alexander  entirely,  makes  it  represent  the  king- 
dom under  Alexander's  generals,  after  his  death.     But  this 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7*.  7 27.  103 

last  being  most  manifestly  incorrect,  the  former  must  be 
adopted. 

Macedonia,  like  the  kingdoms  symbolized  by  the  lion  and 
the  bear,  arose,  as  well  as  advanced  to  universal  dominion,  in 
the  midst  of  wars  and  revolutions.  It  had  been  tributary  for 
a  long  time  to  the  Illyrians,  Thracians  and  Persians,  and  had 
been  obliged  to  give  up  all  its  harbors  to  the  Athenians,  un- 
til Philip,  Alexander's  father,  ascending  the  throne  at  the  age 
of  twenty-two,  B.  C.  3G1,  freed  it  from  its  enemies,  partly  by 
concessions,  partly  by  force  of  arms.  He  sought  to  extend 
his  dominion  over  all  Greece,  which  was  then  distracted  by 
intestine  broils,  and  finally  accomplished  his  object  in  the  bat- 
tle of  Cheronea,  B.  C.  338.  He  assembled  at  Corinth  depu- 
ties fi-om  all  the  Grecian  states,  and  dictated  terms  of  peace 
which  deprived  them  of  freedom.  When  he  was  just  about  to 
be  chosen  commander-in-chief  of  an  army  which  was  to  march 
against  Persia,  he  was  assassinated,  in  the  47th  year  of  his 
age,  by  Pausanias,  a  young  Macedonian,  who  was  hired  to 
commit^ the  deed  by  the  Persians.  He  was  succeeded  by  Al- 
exander, who  received  the  appointment  of  commander-in-chief 
in  place  of  his  father,  and  at  the  head  of  all  the  states  of  Greece, 
Lacedemon  excepted,  entered  Asia,  and  by  an  uninterrupted 
series  of  victories  for  ten  successive  years,  made  Macedonia 
the  mistress  of  half  the  world.* 

7  After  this  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and  behold  a  fourth  beast, 
dreadful  and  terrible,  and  strong  exceedingly ;  and  it  had  great 
iron  teeth  :  it  devoured  and  break  in  pieces,  and  stamped  the  resi- 
due with  the  feet  of  it ;  and  it  was  diverse  from  all  the  beasts  that 

8  were  before  it;  and  it  had  ten  horns.  I  considered  the  horns,  and 
behold,  there  came  up  among  them  another  little  horn,  before  whom 
there  were  three  of  the  first  horns  plucked  up  by  the  roots :  and 
behold,  in  this  horn  were  eyes  like  the  eyes  of  man,  and  a  mouth 
speaking  great  things. 

9  I  beheld  till  the  thrones  were  cast  down,  and  the  Ancient  of 
days  did  sit,  whose  garment  was  white  as  snow,  and  the  hair  of 

*  American  Encyclopedia,  Arts.  Macedon,  and  Philip. 


104  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

his  head  like  the  pure  wool :  his  throne  was  like  the  fiery  flame, 

10  and  his  wheels  as  burning  fire.  A  fiery  stream  issued  and  came 
forth  from  before  him :  thousand  thousands  ministered  unto  him, 
and  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  stood  before  him  :  the  judg- 

11  ment  was  set,  and  the  books  were  opened.  I  beheld  then  because 
of  the  voice  of  the  great  words  which  the  horn  spake  :  I  beheld 
even  till  the  beast  was  slain,  and  his  body  destroyed,  and  given  to 

12  the  burning  flame.  As  concerning  the  rest  of  the  beasts,  they  had 
their  dominion  taken  away :  yet  their  lives  were  prolonged  for  a 
season  and  time. 

13  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and  behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  man 
came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  days, 

14  and  they  brought  him  near  before  him.  And  there  was  given  him 
dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and 
languages,  should  serve  him :  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  do- 
minion, which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom,  that  which 
shall  not  be  destroyed. 

15  I  Daniel  was  grieved  in  my  spirit  in  the  midst  of  my  body,  and 

16  the  visions  of  my  head  troubled  me.  1  came  near  unto  one  of  them 
that  stood  by,  and  asked  him  the  truth  of  all  this.     So  he  told  me, 

17  and  made  me  know  the  interpretation  of  the  things.  These  great 
beasts  which  are  four,  are  four  kings,  ichich  shall  arise  out  of  the 

18  earth.  But  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  shall  take  the  kingdom, 
and  possess  the  kingdom  for  ever,  even  for  ever  and  ever. 

19  Then  I  would  know  the  truth  of  the  fourth  beast,  which  was  di- 
verse from  all  the  others,  exceeding  dreadful,  whose  teeth  were  of 
iron,  and  his  nails  of  brass  ;  which  devoured,  brake  in  pieces,  and 

20  stamped  the  residue  with  his  feet;  and  of  the  ten  horns  that  were 
in  his  head,  and  of  the  other  which  came  up,  and  before  whom 
three  fell ;  even  of  that  horn  that  had  eyes,  and  a  mouth  that  spake 

21  very  great  things,  whose  look  was  more  stout  than  his  fellows.  I 
beheld,  and  the  same  horn  made  war  with  the  saints,  and  prevailed 

22  against  them  :  until  the  Ancient  of  days  came,  and  judgment  was 
given  to  the  saints  of  the  Most  High ;  and  the  time  came  that  the 
saints  possessed  the  kingdom. 

23  Thus  he  said,  The  fourth  beast  shall  be  the  fourth  kingdom  upon 
earth,  which  shall  be  diverse  from  all  kingdoms,  and  shall  devour 
the  whole  earth,  and  shall  tread  it  down,  and  break  it  in  pieces. 

24  And  the  ten  horns  out  of  this  kingdom  are  ten  kings  that  shall 
arise  :  and  another  shall  rise  after  them ;  and  he  shall  be  diverse 

25  from  the  first,  and  he  shall  subdue  three  kings.  And  he  shall 
speak  great  words  against  the  Most  High,  and  shall  wear  out  the 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27.  105 

saints  of  the  Most  High,  and  think  to  change  times  and  laws  :  and 
they  shall  be  given  into  his  hand  until  a  time  and  times  and  the 

26  dividing  of  time.  But  the  judgment  shall  &it,  and  they  shall  take 
away  his  dominion  to  consume  and  to  destroy  it  unto  the  end. 

27  And  the  kingdom  and  dominion,  and  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom 
under  the  v/hole  heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints 
of  the  Most  Pligh,  whose  kingdom  ^5  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and 
all  dominions  shall  serve  and  obey  him. 

General  Remarks  on  the  Fourth  Kingdom. 

What  is  the  kingdom  denoted  by  the  fourth  beast  1  Who 
is  the  king,  or  what  the  race  of  kings,  denoted  by  the  little 
horn  1  In  two  chapters  already  explained,  where  the  laws 
of  interpretation  seem  to  permit  no  other  conclusion,  we  have 
seen  that  the  dominion  of  Alexander's  generals  is  introduced 
as  directly  succeeding  that  of  Alexander ;  that  the  prophet 
enlarges  on  that  dominion  from  the  point  where  it  is  intro- 
duced to  the  end  of  the  chapters.  It  is  the  dominion  of  "  the 
kings  of  the  north  and  of  the  south,"  and  that  of  the  four 
horjis  with  a  little  horn  growing  out  of  one  of  them.  As  this 
monarchy  is  made  to  succeed  Alexander's  in  those  two  c?iap- 
ters,  and  no  mention  even  is  made  of  any  other  except  inci- 
dentally in  two  places ;  (where  "  a  prince  for  his  own  behalf," 
11:  18,  viz.  a  Roman  consul,  came  against  Antiochus  the 
Great,  and  where  "the  ships  of  Chittim,"  11:  30,  viz.  the 
Roman  embassadors,  came  against  Antiochus  Epiphanes;) 
as  the  prophet  has  given  the  kingdom  of  Alexander's  gene- 
rals the  place  of  the  fourth  kingdom  in  those  two  chapters, 
especially  in  chap,  xi,  which  all  agree  to  be  an  expansion  of 
the  other  prophecies  respectipg  the  kingdoms  which  were  to 
precede  the  fifth ;  so  must  it  be  here. 

(2)  It  has  been  already  noticed  in  the  introductory  remarks 
to  this  chapter,  that  there  is  a  remarkable  resemblance  be- 
tween what  is  said  of  the  little  horn  in  verse  8  of  this  chapter, 
and  the  little  horn  in  chap,  viii,  and  the  vile  person  in  chap, 
xi ;  and  that  modern  interpreters  with  one  voice,  however 


106  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

widely  they  differ  in  other  respects,  pronounce  the  little  horn 
in  both  chapters  one  and  the  same  kingdom,  or  race  of  kings. 
If  then  the  little  horn  in  chap,  vii,  is  the  same  with  the  little 
horn  in  chap,  viii,  we  must  seek  for  the  fourth  kingdom 
in  that  which  was  next  after  Alexander's,  and  for  the  little 
horn  among  the  kings,  or  in  the  race  of  kings,  between  whom 
Alexander's  empire  was  divided.  If  the  interpretation  al- 
ready given  to  chaps,  viii.  and  xi,  can  be  relied  on,  the  single 
question  can  only  be  now  asked,  Dees  the  government  mei> 
tioned  in  those  two  chapters  as  belonging  to  Alexander's 
generals,  answer  to  the  description  here  1  It  is  hoped  that  it 
will  be  seen  that  it  does,  and  that  the  correspondence  leaves 
no  room  to  seek  for  its  application  elsewhere. 


The  ten  horns,  and  the  little  horn  springing  up  after  them. 

The  fourth  beast  had  ten  horns,  among  which  another  lit- 
tle horn  sprang  up,  and  before  it  three  of  the  first  horns  were 
plucked  up  by  the  roots.  The  explanation  is  given  in  verse 
24 — "  And  the  ten  horns  ....  are  ten  kings,"  etc.  This  is 
explained  by  some*  as  follows — The  ten  kings  are  to  be  sought 
among  those  who  had  dominion  over  Palestine :  and  from 
various  historical  sources  as  Plutarch,  Josephus,  Diodorus 
Siculus  and  Justin,  it  is  ascertained  that  ten  kings  of  the  gov- 
ernment which  succeeded  Alexander's,  had  dominion  over 
Palestine,  viz.  (1)  Antigonus,  (2)  Demetrius  Poliorcetes, 
(3)  Ptolemy,  son  of  Lagus,  (4)  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  (5) 
Ptolemy  Euergetes  I,  (6)  Ptolemy  Philopator,  (7)  Ptolemy 
Epiphanes,  (8)  Ptolemy  Philometor,  (9)  Antiochus  the  Great, 
(10)  Seleucus  Philopator. 

After  all  these  rose  up  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who  suc- 
ceeded Seleucus  Philopator.  He  subdued  three  kings,  viz. 
(1)  Ptolemy  Philometor,  (2)  Ptolemy  Euergetes  II,  and  (3) 
Artaxias  king  of  Armenia.     Those  who  adopt  this  interpre- 

*  Rosenmaller, 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7*.  7 27.  107 

tation  do  not  feel  obliged  to  find  the  three  kings  among  the 
ten  kings,  because  in  the  interpretation  by  the  angel  as  given 
in  verse  24,  "  he  shall  subdue  three  kings,"  it  seems  to  be 
left  indefinite.  But  it  is  diflicult  not  to  feel  that  the  three 
kings  subdued  are  symbolized  by  three  of  the  first  ten  horns, 
and  that  they  must  be  sought  among  the  ten  kings,  whom  the 
ten  horns  designate.  They  are  not  to  be  found  among  the 
ten  above  selected,  and  therefore  that  interpretation  seems  in- 
adequate, and  is  unsatisfactory.  Moreover,  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes  did  not  subdue  Ptolemy  Euergetes  II.  We  have  seen 
that  this  monarch  was  placed  on  the  throne  at  Alexandria  by 
the  Alexandrians,  after  Ptolemy  Philometor  came  into  Antio- 
chus' hands,  and  that  Antiochus  was  unable  to  subdue  Al- 
exandria. 

A  somewhat  more  satisfactory  method  of  reckoning  up 
the  ten  kings,  is  adopted  by  others.*  They  find  the  ten  in 
the  dynasty  established  by  Seleucus,  (11:  5,)  viz. 

"  1.  Seleucus  [.  Nicator,  founder  of  the  dynasty,  312  B.  C. 

2.  Antiochus  I.  Soter,     .     .     . 

3.  Antiochus  II.  Theos,       .     . 

4.  Seleucus  II.  Callinicus, 

5.  Seleucus  III.  Ceraunus, 

6.  Antiochus  III.  the  Great,   . 

7.  Seleucus  IV.  Philopator,    . 
C    8.  Heliodorus, 

2    9.  Ptolemy  IV.  [VI  ?]  Philomator,  king  of  Egypt, 
^  10.  Demetrius  I.  Soter,  son  of  Seleucus  Philopator." 

We  have  seen,  on  chap.  11:  21,  that  Heliodorus,  and  Ptol- 
emy Philometor,  were  candidates  for  the  crown,  and  that  De- 
metrius was  the  lawful  heir.  These  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
displaced,  having  overcome  them  partly  by  fraud,  and  partly 
by  the  aid  of  others.  But  there  are  two  objections  to  this, 
which  certainly  have  some  weight, — (1)  that  the  scriptural 
usage  does  not  make  "  king  "  synonymous  with  a  mere  aspi- 

*  See  a  valuable  Article  in  the  Christian  (Baptist)  Review  for  March 
1842,  "  Remarks  on  the  Book  of  Daniel." 


from  279  B. 

C.  to  260. 

"  260 

245. 

«  245 

«   226. 

"   22:5 

223. 

«  223 

187. 

"  186 

175. 

108  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 21. 

rant  for  the  kingly  office,  and  such  only  was  Heliodorus  ;  for 
he  had  not  succeeded  in  usurping  the  throne — he  had  not 
gained  the  object  for  which  he  murdered  his  master..  (2) 
Demetrius  afterward  gained  the  Syrian  throne,  as  will  be  no- 
ticed on  12:  1,  and  such  a  fact  would  hardly  be  consistent 
with  the  declaration,  "  plucked  up  by  the  roots."  His  being 
displaced  temporarily  by  Antiochus,  and  that  too  when  he 
was  not  in  Syria  to  contend  with  his  rival,  but  at  Rome  where 
he  could  only  look  on  and  see  himself  supplanted,  falls  short 
of  the  meaning  and  force  of  the  emblem. 

Others,  following  Grotius,  make  out  a  catalogue  of  kings, 
of  which  the  last  three  are  Seleucus  Philopator,  Demetrius, 
and  Ptolemy  Philopator — he  must  however  mean  P.  Philo- 
metor ;  for  P.  Philopator  died  205  B.  C.  while  Antiochus  the 
Great  was  on  the  throne  of  Syria.  To  this,  besides  what  has 
already  been  urged  against  including  Demetrius  in  the  num- 
ber, there  seems  the  greater  objection  still,  that  all  history  is 
silent  as  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  having  any  agency  in  the 
death  of  his  uncle.  It  was  Heliodorus  alone — who  thought  it 
a  favorable  opportunity  to  seize  the  kingdom  in  the  absence 
both  of  Demetrius  the  son  on  his  way  to  Rome,  and  of  An- 
tiochus the  nephew  on  his  return  from  Rome  to  Aniioch.  It 
may  here  be  said  too,  in  respect  to  Ptolemy  Philometor,  (and 
the  same  objection  exists  against  the  selection  made  by  Ro- 
senmiiller,  etc.)  that  he  was  subdued  only  for  a  season  by  A. 
Epiphanes,  and  that  uniting  with  his  brother,  supported  also 
by  the  Romans,  he  succeeded  in  driving  Antiochus  Epipha- 
nes out  of  Egypt. 

If  no  other  solution  can  be  presented,  it  would  seem  that 
we  must  rest  content  with  leaving  this  among  the  prophecies 
too  obscure  to  be  satisfactorily  explained  in  its  every  particu- 
lar. The  alternative  in  such  a  case  need  not  be,  that  we 
must  seek  some  other  kingdom  than  that  which  succeeded 
Alexander's,  and  some  other  king  beside  A.  Epiphanes,  or 
the  race  whence  he  sprung.     For  as  the  obscure  must  be  in- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27.  109 

terpreted  by  the  plain,  and  as  the  prophecy  of  the  little  horn 
in  chap,  viii,  and  of  the  vile  person  11:  21 — 45,  must  indis- 
putably mean  A.  Epiphanes,  so  may  we  apply  the  little  horn 
here  in  chap.  vii.  to  him,  even  though  it  were  not  in  our  power 
to  find  at  this  remote  period  an  event  in  history  to  correspond 
with  every  minute  particular.  But  the  following  is  presented 
as  an  adequate  solution,  after  all,  of  this  much  vexed  pas- 
sage; and  it  will  appear  in  the  course  of  remarks  on  the 
chapter,  that  the  passage  has  been  no  more  vexed  by  those 
who  apply  it  to  A.  Epiphanes  and  the  kingdom  which  imme- 
diately succeeded  Alexander's,  than  it  has  been,  and  is  still, 
by  the  other  class  of  interpreters  who  apply  it  to  Rome  and 
the  Papal  power. 

The  government  denoted  by  this  fourth  beast,  is  that  im- 
mediately succeeding  Alexander's,  and  usurped  by  his  of- 
ficers, the  principal  of  whorh  were  the  following:  (1)  Eu- 
menes,  (2)  Perdiccas,  (3)  Antipater,  (4)  Leonnatus,  (5)  Cra- 
terus,  (6)  Neoptolemus,  (7)  Antigonus,  (8)  Demetrius  son  of 
Antigonus,  whom  his  father  associated  with  himself  in  his 
government,  (9)  Ptolemy,  (10)  Cassander,  (11)  Seleucus. 
It  is  certain  that  six  of  these  wore  the  title  of  kings  at  least 
five  years  before  the  formal  partition  of  the  kingdom,  301 

B.  C.  Plutarch,*  speaking  of  the  battle  of  Ipsus,  B.  C.  301, 
at  which  Lysimachus,  Seleucus,  Ptolemy,  Cassander,  Anti- 
gonus, and  Demetrius  were  all  there  in  person,  uses  such 
language  as  this  :  "  that  great  battle  of  Ipsus  where  all  the 
kings  of  the  earth  were  engaged."     At  this  period  301  B. 

C,  the  successors  of  Alexander  were  reduced  to  six;  that 
same  year,  the  four  parted  the  empire  among  themselves ;  a 
little  later,  they  were  reduced  to  two.  They  were  kings  in 
reality,  they  had  usurped  the  regal  power,  before  they  took 
the  name  ;  and  it  would  seem  not  to  admit  of  question  that 
there  were  as  many  as  ten  of  them  reigning  at  some  one  pe- 

*  Vol.  II.  p.  250,  Life  of  Pyrrhus,  Harper's  ed. 

10 


110  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

riod  after  Alexander's  death,  and  earlier  than  301  B.  C- 
And  there  may  have  been  this  precise  number  ten,  though 
history  furnishes  the  names  of  only  six.  And  even  if  there 
were  more  than  ten  kings  reigning  over  Alexander's  empire 
at  one  time,  it  is  what  those  are  compelled  to  find,  as  we  shall 
see,  who  apply  it  to  Rome.  Alexander's  officers  usurping 
the  regal  power,  they  could  be  called  kings  by  Scripture 
usage,  as  the  usurper  Smerdis  was  called  king,  see  on  1]:  2, 
There  then  the  beast  stood,  with  his  ten  horns  existing  all  at 
once — shooting  out  and  appearing  on  the  head  together. 
Those  ten  horns  denoted  ten  kings,  or  races  of  kings,  which 
began  after  Alexander's  death,  B.  C.  324,  although  many  of 
them  were  exterminated  before  301  B.  C,  at  which  time  on- 
ly four  horns  existed. 

Among  those  ten  kings  sprung  up  Seleucus  I,  on  whom 
Babylon  was  conferred  by  Antipater,  on  a  new  distribution 
of  the  kingdom  after  that  which  took  place  in  council  on 
Alexander's  death.  History  speaks  of  his  "low  beginning, 
from  which  he  grew  up  at  length  to  be  the  greatest  of  all 
Alexander's  successors."*  From  Babylon  he  was  compelled 
to  flee,  315  B.  C,  to  escape  from  the  superior  power  of  Anti- 
gonus,  governor  of  Lycia,  Pamphylia,  etc.,  who  had  con- 
ceived the  design  of  grasping  the  whole  empire,  and  whose 
strength  was  so  great  that  no  power  in  the  empire  was  then 
capable  of  resisting  it.  He  took  refuge  in  Egypt,  then  under 
Ptolemy  I,  and  succeeded  in  getting  Ptolemy,  with  Lysima- 
chus  and  Cassander,  to  espouse  his  cause.  They  marched 
against  Antigonus  and  his  son  Demetrius,  and  defeated  them. 
After  this  Seleucus  obtained  of  Ptolemy  1000  foot  and  300 
horse,  and  marched  eastward  to  recover  Babylon.  "  With  so 
small  a  force,"  remarks  Prideaux,f  "  did  he  undertake  so  great 
an  enterprize,  and  succeeded  in  it."  On  his  approach  to 
the  city  he  found  the  gates  open  to  him,  and  he  made  a  tri- 

*  Prideaux,  Vol.  I.  p.  402.  t  Connexions  Vol.  1.  p.  402. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27.  Ill 

umphal  entry,  in  the  year  B.  C.  312 ;  the  people  being  re- 
joiced to  have  him  reinstated  in  his  former  command.  He 
thus  sprung  up  after  the  others. 

He  also  subdued  three  kings,  three  of  the  ten ;  three  of 
Alexander's  immediate  successors,  who  are  explicitly  men- 
tioned as  kings,  viz.  Antigonus,  Lysimachus,  and  Demetrius. 
Seleucus,  being  reinstated  in  his  former  command,  grew  more 
and  more  powerful,  until  in  305  B.  C.  he  became  master  of 
Media,  Assyria,  Babylon,  Persia,  Bactriana,  Hyrcania,  etc., 
and  wore  the  name  of  king.  Antigonus  was  still  designing 
to  suppress  all  the  other  successors  of  Alexander,  and  usurp 
the  whole  empire  to  himself.  Seleucus  on  finishing  a  war 
against  Sandrocottus  an  Indian  prince,  marched  into  Cappa- 
docia  against  Antigonus,  in  the  beginning  of  301  B.  C.  An- 
tigonus, being  joined  by  his  son  Demetrius  out  of  Greece, 
met  Seleucus,  with  whom  Lysimachus  was  then  associated, 
near  the  city  Ipsus  in  Phrygia,  where  a  battle  was  fought  and 
Antigonus  was  slain.  He  was  plucked  up  out  of  the  empire 
as  the  horn  was  plucked  up  out  of  the  head  of  the  beast.  On 
the  event  of  this  battle  the  kingdom  was  divided,  by  agree- 
ment, between  Seleucus,  Lysimachus,  Cassander  and  Ptole- 
my, and  to  Seleucus  fell  the  greater  part  of  Antigonus'  do- 
minions, viz.  Syria,  and  many  provinces  in  Asia  Minor. 

In  the  year  288  B.  C,  Demetrius  who  had  escaped  the 
fate  of  his  father  in  the  battle  of  Ipsus,  and  established  him- 
self in  Greece,  made  preparations  to  recover  his  father's  em- 
pire in  Asia.  He  invaded  Caria  and  Lycia,  took  many  ci- 
ties belonging  to  Lysimachus,  entered  Tarsus  in  Celicia, 
stormed  the  passes  into  Syria,  which  were  guarded  by  Seleu- 
cus' soldiers,  but  at  last  was  compelled  to  surrender  himself 
to  Seleucus,  who  caused  him  to  be  carried  under  strong 
guard  to  the  Syrian  Chersonesus  near  Laodicea  in  Phrygia, 
and  there  kept  him  a  prisoner  until  he  died,  in  the  third  year 
of  his  confinement.     Demetrius  was  the  second  king,  (being 


112  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

crowned  306  B.  C.,)  whom  Seleucus  subdued  and  rooted 
out. 

In  2S2  B.  C,  Seleucus  marched  into  Asia  Minor,  and  took 
Sardis,  with  the  treasures  laid  up  there  by  Lysimachus.  The 
next  year,  Lysimachus,  having  gathered  an  army  to  repel  this 
invasion,  passed  from  Thrace  over  the"^  Hellespont,  came  to  a 
battle  with  Seleucus  in  Phrygia,  where  he  was  vanquished 
and  slain.  He  was  the  third  king  subdued  by  Seleucus,  and 
the  dominions  of  all  these  three  kings  passed  into  the  hands 
of  their  conqueror.  He  plucked  them  up  by  the  roots  and 
seized  upon  what  was  theirs  ;  and  history  mentions  no  more 
among  the  successors  of  Alexander  whom  he  subdued.*  Here 
then  is  a  perfect  correspondence  between  this  part  of  the  em- 
blem and  the  exploits  of  Seleucus  I.,  who  was  the  founder  of 
the  Syrian  kingdom,  the  head  of  the  race  of  the  Seleucidae, 
from  whom  descended  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In  him,  and 
in  that  race  of  kings,  and  in  their  deeds,  may  we  look  for  the 
little  horn  and  all  its  deeds. 

It  has  already  appeared  under  11:  6,  and  8:  3,  compared 
with  8:  7,  that  the  word  "king"  is  used  either  for  an  indivi- 
dual king,  or  for  a  race  of  kings;  and  this  none  indeed  dis- 
pute. We  have  the  usage  of  the  prophet  therefore  in  regard- 
ing the  little  horn  in  7:  8,  as  the  symbol  of  a  race  of  kings, 
and  the  "king"  in  vs.  24 — 26  as  synonymous  with  race  of 
kings.  If  then  we  find  some  of  the  things  asserted  fulfilled 
in  the  founder  of  the  race  or  dynasty,  and  some  in  one  of 
his  descendants,  and  the  occupants  of  his  throne,  we  meet 
every  reasonable  demand  respecting  the  application  of  the  pro- 
phecy. It  should  be  considered  also  that  this  seventh  chap- 
ter is  the  more  enigmatical  prophecy,  and  the  vision  in  chap. 

*  He  also  subdued  and  killed  in  battle,  Nicanor,  governor  of  Me- 
dia; but  Nicanor  is  mentioned  in  history  only  as  "  governor  of  Media 
for  Antigonus  ;"  (Prideaux,  Vol  I.  p.  402;)  he  did  not  rank  witJi  Se- 
leucus, Ptolemy,  etc.,  and  he  was  sent  against  Seleucus  by  Antigonus. 


INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  7:  7 Stl .  113 

viii.  was  designed  to  make  that  part  of  it  more  clear  and  defi- 
nite, which,  in  the  first  announcement  of  the  deeds  of  the  little 
horn,  was  obscure.  In  making  the  second  announcement, 
therefore,  it  was  so  expressed  as  to  make  it  clear  that  certain 
deeds  were  to  be  performed  by  an  individual  king ;  and  his 
own  individuality,  as  well  as  his  origin  and  race,  was  explicit- 
ly given.  In  the  7th,  it  was  a  little  horn  among  many  other 
horns,  three  of  whom  it  would  displace  ;  in  the  8th,  it  was 
a  little  horn  off-shooting  from  one  of  four.  And  this  very 
imagery  of  the  four  horns  in  chap,  viii,  one  of  them  having  a 
branch,  further  shows  that  the  horns  themselves  were  em- 
blematical rather  of  race,  or  stock,  than  of  individual  kings, 
and  that  the  branch — the  off-shoot — was  the  emblem  of  an 
individual  king.  As  in  chap,  viii,  respecting  the  four  horns, 
and  the  two  horns,  so  here  in  chap,  vii,  respecting  the  little 
horn,  (little  when  it  first  appeared  among  the  others,  but  in- 
creasing afterwards,)  the  race  of  kings,  and  not  an  indivi- 
dual king,  is  to  be  sought  as  its  correspondent. 

It  remains  only  to  find  what  is  said  here  of  the  deeds  of 
the  little  horn  and  the  doom  of  the  beast,  in  the  race  and  king- 
dom of  Seleucus,  etc.,  and  it  will  be  put  beyond  reasonable 
question,  that  the  fourth  kingdom  in  this  prophecy  was  that 
which  succeeded  Alexander's — that  into  which  his  was  bro- 
ken, 11:  4 — that  which  in  chap.  yiii.  is  described  as  eventu- 
ally four  kingdoms  standing  up  out  of  the  nation — that  which 
we  shall  see  in  chap.  ii.  to  be  denoted  by  the  legs  of  iron,  and 
feet  part  of  iron  and  part  of  clay.  The  complex  and  manifold 
government  of  Alexander's  successors,  between  whose  hands 
the  empire  of  the  world  shifted  again  and  again,  is  well  sym- 
bolized by  this  unnamed  beast.  But  before  proceeding  to 
these  particulars,  it  seems  due  to  examine  some  of  the  reasons 
which  have  led  so  many  to  reject  the  application  of  this  pro- 
phecy to  the  government  of  Alexander's  successors,  and  to 
refer  it  to  Rome  and  the  papal  power. 

10* 


114  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^"t 


Reasons  which  have  led  many  to  reject  the  application  of  the 
vision  concerning  the  fourth  beast  to  the  government  of  Al- 
exander's successors. 

(1)  There  is  the  fact  that  the  kingdom  of  Alexander  and 
that  of  his  successors  are  often  spoken  of  in  history  as  one  and 
the  same.  So  Dionysius  Halicarnassus,  a  Greek  writer  in 
the  reign  of  Augustus,  as  quoted  by  Bishop  Newton,  p.  207, 
"  the  Persian  was  succeeded  by  the  Macedonian,  and  the 
Macedonian  by  the  Roman."  So  says  Tacitus,  B.  v.  Sec. 
8,  "  While  the  east  was  in  the  power  of  the  Assyrians, 
and  the  Medes  and  Persians,  Judea  was  the  most  despicable 
of  the  provinces  subject  to  them.  After  the  Macedonians 
gained  the  ascendency,  king  Antiochus,"  etc.  (See  the  re- 
mainder of  the  sentence  under  11:  44.)  So  also  do  they 
seem  to  be  contemplated  as  one  in  chap,  viii,  where  the  four 
horns  grow  up  in  the  place  of  the  one  conspicuous  horn,  on 
the  head  of  the  goat,  i.  e.  four  races  of  kings  succeed  to  the 
race  of  Alexander  over  the  empire  of  the  Macedonians. 

But  while  they  are  considered  one  and  the  same,  they  are 
also  presented  as  distinct  kingdoms.  In  one  point  of  view, 
they  are  the  same,  in  another  point  of  view  they  are  separ- 
ate. Thus  in  11:  4,  the  kingdom  of  Alexander  is  represent- 
ed as  broken  to  pieces  like  a  potter's  vessel,  and  divided  to- 
ward the  four  winds  of  heaven  ;  as  plucked  up  and  given  to 
others  not  of  his  posterity,  nor  of  the  race  whence  he  sprung. 
Here  is  entirely  another  dynasty.  Even  in  chap,  viii,  in  the 
explanation  of  the  vision  concerning  the  great  horn  of  the  he- 
goat,  and  the  four  which  arose  in  its  place,  language  is  used 
which  contemplates  the  two  as  separate  kingdoms.  It  reads 
that  "  four  kingdoms  shall  stand  up  out  of  the  nation" — four 
stand  up  out  of  the  one  which  had  fallen  and  perished.  And 
in  the  next  verse  (23)  the  phrase  is  used,  "  their  kingdom," 
in  distinction  from  Alexander's. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27.  115 

In  1  Mace.  1:  10,  the  era  is  introduced  of  "the  kingdom 
of  the  Greeks."  This  era  was  that  which  commenced  with 
the  triumphal  return  of  Seleucus  to  Babylon,  .312  B.  C,  [311 
years  and  4  months,]  and  was  called  also  the  era  of  the  Se- 
leucidae.  It  was  used  in  Syria  for  many  years,  and  frequent- 
ly by  the  Jews  until  the  15th  century,  and  is  by  some  Arabians 
to  this  day.*  Now  Alexander  the  Great  began  to  reign  336 
B.  C. — twenty-four  years  previous.  It  is  obvious  therefore 
that  in  this  era  of  the  Seleucidae,  or  of  the  kingdom  of  the 
Greeks,  their  kingdom  is  contemplated  as  distinct  from  Alex- 
ander's.! Most  certainly,  therefore,  Alexander's  successors 
may  be  properly  represented  as  still  another  beast,  in  harmo- 
ny with  what  we  see  to  have  been  one  mode  of  contemplating 
their  kingdom.  Moreover,  they  got  possession  of  his  king- 
dom, as  he  had  got  possession  of  that  of  Cyrus  and  his  suc- 
cessors, and  Cyrus  of  the  kingdom  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Theirs  succeeded  to  his,  as  his  to  the  Persian,  and  the  Per- 
sian to  the  Chaldean.  The  reason  why  their  kingdom  was 
sometimes  contemplated  as  the  Macedonian^  as  by  Tacitus, 
was  doubtless  that  his  successors  were  principally  Macedoni- 
an. Such  was  Seleucus  I,  son  of  Antiochus,  and  such  was 
Ptolemy  I,  son  of  Lagus. 

*  Encyc.  AiBericana,  Art.  Epoch. 

t  In  Mace.  1:  5,  6,  it  is  said  that  when  Alexander  "  fell  sick,  and 
perceived  that  he  should  die,  he  called  his  servants,  such  as  were  hon- 
orable, and  had  been  brought  up  with  him  from  his  youth,  and  parted 
his  kingdom  among  them,  while  he  was  yet  alive."  Now  that  this  does 
not  mean  that  he  made  them  his  successors  in  the  kingdom,  is  manifest 
from  verses  8,  9,  "  And  his  servants  bare  rule  every  one  in  his  place, 
and  after  his  death  they  all  put  crowns  on  themselves,  so  did  their  sons 
after  them  many  years."  That  rule  was  to  be  governors  of  the  provin- 
ces, not  kings,  and  it  was  to  this  rule  he  appointed  them — the  crowns 
they  themselves  seized.  Comp.  11:  39,  where  it  is  said  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes — "  He  shall  cause  tliem  to  rule  over  many,  and  shall  di- 
vide the  land  for  gain." 


116  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27. 

)  Another  reason*  for  rejecting  the  application  of  the 
vision  concerning  the  fourth  beast  to  the  kingdom  of  Alex- 
ander's successors,  has  been  the  fact,  that  early  writers  both 
Jewish  and  Christian,  and  the  great  body  of  commentators 
in  the  Church,  have  considered  this  fourth  kingdom  to  be  the 
Roman.  Says  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  a  Jew,  who  lived  a 
little  before  our  Savior — "  The  kingdom  of  Babylon  shall  not 
continue,  nor  exercise  dominion  over  Israel ;  the  kings  of 
Media  shall  be  slain,  and  the  strong  men  of  Greece  shall  not 
prosper  ;  the  Romans  shall  be  blotted  out,  nor  collect  tribute 
from  Jerusalem."  Irenaeus,  a  Christian  father  of  the  second 
century,  says  respecting  Antichrist,  that  he  "is  denoted  by 
the  little  horn  among  the  ten  kings — the  kings  among  whom 
the  empire  that  now  reigneth  shall  be  divided."  St.  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  in  the  fourth  century,  says  respecting  Anti- 
christ's coming  in  the  latter  times  of  the  Roman  empire — 
"  We  teach  these  things  not  of  our  own  invention,  but  hav- 
ing learned  them  out  of  the  divine  Scriptures,  and  especially 
out  of  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  ;  even  as  Gabriel  the  archangel 
interpreted — the  fourth  beast  shall  be  the  fourth  kingdom 
upon  earth,  which  shall  exceed  all  the  kingdoms ;  but  that 
this  is  the  empire  of  the  Romans,  ecclesiastical  interpreters 
have  delivered.  For  the  first  was  the  kingdom  of  the  Assy- 
rians ;  and  the  second  was  that  of  the  Medes  and  Persians 
together  ;  and  after  these,  the  third  was  that  of  the  Macedo- 
nians, and  the  fourth  kingdom  is  now  that  of  the  Romans." 
Next  Jerome — **  Therefore  let  us  say  what  all  ecclesiastical 

*  A  reason  on  which  Bishop  Newton  lays  much  stress.  He  quotes 
Mr.  Mede,  whom  he  pronounces  "  as  able  and  consummate  a  judge 
as  any  in  these  matters,"  p.  192:  "The  Roman  empire  to  be  the 
fourth  kingdom  of  Daniel,  was  believed  by  the  church  of  Israel  both 
before  and  in  our  Savior's  time  ;  received  by  the  disciples  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  the  whole  Christian  church  for  300  years,  without  any 
known  contradiction.  And  I  confess,  having  so  good  ground  in 
Scripture,  it  is  with  me  little  less  than  an  article  of  faith." 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27.  117 

writers  have  delivered,  that  in  the  latter  days,  when  the  em- 
pire of  the  Romans  shall  be  destroyed,  there  will  be  ten  kings, 
who  shall  divide  it  between  them,  and  an  eleventh  shall  arise, 
a  little  king,  who  shall  subdue  three  of  the  ten  kings,  and  the 
other  seven  shall  submit  their  necks  to  the  conqueror."  And 
to  mention  no  more,  Augustine  —  "These  four  kingdoms 
some  have  expounded  to  be  the  Assyrian,  Persian,  Macedo- 
nian and  Roman.  How  properly  they  have  done  that,  those 
who  are  desirous  of  knowing,  may  read  the  presbyter  Je- 
rome's book  upon  Daniel,  which  is  very  accurately  and  learn- 
edly written." — Newton  on  the  Prophecies,  pp.  195,  212 — 
214. 

Now  we  have  seen  that  the  current  of  interpretation  for 
centuries  from  the  earliest  period,  both  among  Jews  and 
Christians,  set  towards  Antiochus  Epiphanes  as  the  monarch 
primarily  intended  by  the  little  horn  in  chap,  viii,  and  the 
king,  whose  history  is  given  in  11:  21 — 45.  But  this  does 
not  hinder  those  who  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  ancients 
on  this  chap,  vii,  from  disclaiming  that  authority  in  other 
places  where  it  is  equally  strong.  And  it  should  indeed  lead 
us  to  be  cautious  of  accepting  the  opinion  of  the  fathers,  ex- 
cept the  reasons  for  it  can  be  sustained,  when  we  consider 
how  the  very  best  of  them  leaned  on  the  authority  of  ecclesi- 
astical writers  that  had  preceded  them ;  when  we  consider 
also  how  extravagant  were  their  notions  respecting  Antichrist, 
who  was  designated  as  they  supposed  by  the  little  horn. 
They  asserted  he  would  be  a  Jew,  a  descendant  of  the  tribe 
of  Dan ;  that  he  would  come  from  Babylon,  fix  his  residence 
in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  first  subdue  Egypt  and  after- 
wards Libya  and  Ethiopia,  which  were  the  three  horns  pluck- 
ed up  before  the  little  horn.*     Those  who  speak  of  the  au- 

*  Bishop  Newton,  p.  214.  Some  of  the  Jewish  writers  about  the 
middle  of  the  12th  century,  as  R.  Aben  Ezra,  also  regarded  the  fourth 
beast  as  the  Turkish  empire,  which  had  taken  Jerusalem,  subdued 
Asia  Minor,  and  filled  the  world  with  the  terror  of  their  arms,  See 


118  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

thority  of  ancient  interpretation,  would  be  more  wise  if  they 
followed  the  fathers  where  the  fathers  were  right,  viz.  in  ap- 
plying chaps,  viii.  and  xi.  primarily  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
and  departed  from  them  where  the  fathers  were  inconsistent 
with  themselves,  viz.  in  finding  primarily  in  chap.  vii.  what 
they  did  not  find  primarily  in  chaps,  viii.  and  xi.  And  yet 
it  is  this  traditionary  interpretation  which  to  this  day  sways 
the  minds  of  most, — that  what  by  way  of  excellence  have 
been  called  the  four  great  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  viz.  the 
Babylonian,  the  Persian,  the  Grecian  and  the  Roman,  were 
symbolized  by  the  four  beasts  in  the  vision  of  Daniel.* 

The  great  objection  to  considering  the  fourth  kingdom  to 
be  the  Roman  is  that  which  has  already  been  dwelt  on,  viz. 
the  Roman  empire  is  not  contemplated  in  chaps,  viii.  and  xi, 
as  succeeding  the  Macedonian.  It  is  to  be  farther  said, — 
and  it  seems  an  insuperable  objection, — that  the  Romans 
never  possessed  the  empire  of  Alexander,  their  sceptre  did  not 
sway  the  countries  in  Asia  once  held  by  the  kings  of  Assyria, 
Persia,  and  Greece,  but  the  successors  of  Alexander,  espe- 
cially Seleucus,  did.  It  is  true  that  in  a  passage  from  an  an- 
cient writer  already  referred  to,  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus, 
it  is  asserted  that  the  Roman  empire  "  ruleth  over  all  the  earth 
as  far  as  it  is  inhabited,  and  commands  all  the  sea  and  the  ocean 
as  far  as  navigable,  being  the  first  and  only  one  of  all  the  most 
celebrated  kingdoms,  to  make  the  east  and  west  the  bounds 
of  its  empire."  But  as  matter  of  fact,  the  Euphrates  was  the 
extreme  eastern  boundary  of  the  Roman  empire  ;  and  nations 

Christian  Review  for  March  1842,  p.  28.  The  writer  justly  adds  the 
remark,  that  it  was  the  circumstances  of  the  times  that  led  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  application  to  Rome,  as  well  as  to  the  Turks. 

*  Mr.  Litch,  one  of  the  writers  in  favor  of  the  theory  of  the  end  of 
the  world  in  1843,  says,  "  that  the  four  kings,  or  kingdoms,  repre- 
sented by  the  beasts  were,  —  1.  The  Chaldean, — 2.  The  Medo-Per- 
sian,  —  3.  The  Macedonian, — 4.  The  Roman  governments — is  so  uni- 
versally acknowledged,  that  I  shall  not  at  all  dwell  on  it,"  p.  60. 


INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  7:  7 27.  119 

lying  beyond  that  river,  and  constituting  the  central  empire 
of  the  Babylonians,  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  and  then  of 
the  Greeks  under  Alexander,  it  never  conquered.  The  em- 
pire was  confined  within  limits  on  the  East  as  recommended 
by  Augustus  to  his  successors,  viz.  the  Euphrates ;  where 
for  the  whole  of  the  first  century  they  stood,  and  were  bro- 
ken over  by  Trajan  in  the  second  century  only  to  confirm 
the  wisdom  of  the  advice  of  Augustus.  For  the  conquests 
which  he  made  in  Armenia,  Parthia,  (including  a  part  of 
Persia,)  and  Mesopotamia,  could  not  be  maintained,  and  the 
Roman  garrisons  were  shortly  withdrawn,  on  his  death,  which 
happened  at  Selinus  in  Cilicia,  on  his  return  to  Italy.  This 
extension  of  the  empire  beyond  the  Euphrates,  though  reach- 
ing but  a  very  small  portion  of  the  dominions  of  Alexander 
and  his  predecessors  in  the  East,  was  yet  the  greatest  that 
ever  acknowledged  Roman  sway.*  Now  let  these  facts  be 
compared  with  the  imagery  in  chap,  viii,  where  the  he-goat 
smites  the  ram,  and  the  four  horns  rise  up  in  his  dominion, 
and  the  little  horn  waxes  exceeding  great  toward  the  East, 
and  in  the  light  of  that  imagery  let  the  language  of  chap.  vii. 
be  interpreted,  and  it  must  be  felt  that  the  limitation  of  the 
Roman  empire  within  the  Euphrates,  and  its  small  and  tem- 
porary extension  beyond,  do  not  come  up  to  the  demands  of 
the  symbol.  It  did  not  succeed  to  the  dominion  of  the 
Greeks,  it  did  not  subdue  that  dominion,  as  the  Greeks  sub- 
dued and  succeeded  to  the  dominion  of  the  Persians,  and 
these  to  that  of  the  Chaldeans.  The  fourth  beast,  if  Rome 
be  meant,  did  not  stand  where  the  others  had  stood.  Only 
the  kingdom  of  the  successors  of  Alexander,  only  the  mani- 
fold dynasty  that  stood  up  in  the  place  of  his,  answers  to  the 
nature  of  the  symbol,  and  that  kingdom  with  its  kings  must  ac- 
cordingly be  designated  by  the  fourth  beast  and  its  ten  horns. 

^  Gibbon,  Vol.  f.  pp.  1 — 5.  Amer.  Encyc,  Articles  Trajan  and  Par- 
thia. Trajan  indeed  sent  home  glowing  accounts,  so  that  the  Senate 
was  absolutely  astonished;  but  they  were  more  glowing  than  the 
reality. 


120  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

It  was  remarked  above,  that  those  who  make  the  Roman 
empire  the  fourth  beast,  have  vexed  the  passage  as  much  as 
others,  and  are  obliged  to  find  more  than  ten  kingdoms — 
they  regarding  the  ten  horns  the  emblems  not  of  kings,  nor 
races  of  kings,  but  of  kingdoms.  As  reckoned  by  Sir  Isaac 
Newton,  they  are  "  1.  the  kingdom  of  the  Vandals  and 
Alans  in  Spain  and  Africa;  2.  of  the  Suevians  in  Spain  ;  3. 
of  the  Visigoths;  4.  of  the  Alans  in  Gallia;  5.  of  the  Bur- 
gundians ;  6.  of  the  Franks ;  7.  of  the  Britons ;  8.  of  the 
Huns;  9.  of  the  Lombards;  10.  of  Ravenna." 

Mr.  Mede  reckons  them  up  for  the  year  after  Rome  was 
sacked  by  Genseric  king  of  the  Vandals,  A.  D.  456,  as  fol- 
lows :  "  1.  the  Britons ;  2.  the  Saxons  in  Britain  ;  3.  the 
Franks;  4.  the  Burgundians  ;  5.  the  Wisigoths  in  the  south 
of  France  and  part  of  Spain ;  6.  the  Sueves  and  Alans  in 
Gallicia  and  Portugal ;  7.  the  Vandals  in  Afric ;  8.  the  Ale- 
manes  in  Germany  ;  9.  the  Ostrogoths  whom  the  Longobards 
succeeded,  in  Pannonia,  and  afterwards  in  Italy;  10.  the 
Greeks  in  the  residue  of  the  empire." 

Bishop  Lloyd,  a  chronologist,  gives  the  following  list :  "  1. 
Huns  in  Hungary,  who  rose  A.  D.  356 ;  2.  Ostrogoths  in 
Moesia  377 ;  3.  Wisigoths  in  Pannonia  378  ;  4.  Franks  in 
France  407  ;  5.  Vandals  in  Africa  407  ;  6.  Sueves  and  Alans 
in  Gascoyne  and  Spain  407;  7.  Burgundians  in  Burgundy 
407 ;  8.  Herules  and  Rugians  in  Italy  476  ;  9.  Saxons  in 
Britain  476 ;  10.  Longobards  in  Germany  483,  and  in  Hun- 
gary 526."  This  list  was  originally  given  by  Machiavelli  as 
ten  kingdoms  into  which  the  incursions  of  the  northern  bar- 
barians dismembered  the  empire.* 

Bishop  Newton  makes  out  another  list  for  the  eighth  cen- 
tury and  he  is  followed  by  Dr.  Scott  and  others,  viz. :  "  1.  the 
Senate  of  Rome;  2.  the  Greeks  in  Ravenna;  3.  the  Lom- 
bards in  Lombardy ;  4.  the  Huns  in  Hungary ;  5.  the  Ale- 

*  This  is  followed  by  some  of  the  writers  on  the  end  of  the  world 
in  1843,  as  Litch,  p.  63. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27.  121 

manes  in  Germany ;  6.  the  Franks  in  France ;  7.  the  Bar- 
gundians  in  Burgundy ;  8.  the  Goths  in  Spain ;  9.  the  Bri- 
tons ;  10.  the  Saxons  in  Britain." 

Now  here  are  two,  Mr.  Mede  and  Bishop  Lloyd,  concern- 
ing the  former  of  whom  Bishop  Newton  quotes  with  appro- 
bation the  remark  of  another — that  "  he  was  as  a  man  divine- 
ly inspired  for  the  interpretation  of  the  prophecies" — and  he 
was  truly  a  learned  and  godly  man — here  are  two  who  reck- 
on up  ten  broken  fragments  of  the  Roman  empire  after  its 
downfall,  and  each  introduces  three  not  reckoned  by  the  other 
— the  former,  the  Britons,  Alemanes  and  Greeks  ;  the  latter, 
the  Huns,  Heruli  and  Longobards,  or  Lombards.  Sir  Isaac 
Newton  has  some  not  in  Mr-  Mede's  list,  and  some  not  in 
Bishop  Lloyd's. 

It  is  manifest  from  the  above  comparison,  that  two  learn- 
ed writers  together  find  more  than  ten  kingdoms,  though 
separately  they  find  only  ten,  at  the  period  of  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Roman  empire.  Bishop  Newton,  who  takes 
the  kingdoms  at  a  later  date,  remarks,  "  not  that  there  were 
constantly  ten  kingdoms,they  were  sometimes  more  and  some- 
times fewer."  And  he  might  have  made  the  admission 
that  there  is  no  proof  that  at  the  particular  time  of  the  rise 
of  the  Papacy,  there  were  exactly  ten ;  though  he  quote* 
Mr.  Whiston  as  saying  that  "  in  A.  D.  456"  the  number 
"was  exactly  ^ew,"  and  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  that  "  whatever 
was  their  number  afterwards,  they  are  still  called  the  ten 
kings  from  their  first  nunber."  The  fact  is,  there  is  no 
proof  that  ten  was  their  first  number.  Scarcely  any  two  in- 
vestigators of  any  one  period  agree  together  in  finding  ten 
alone,  except  Bishop  Lloyd  and  Machiavelli,  the  former  of 
whom  follows  the  latter,  and  whose  chief  merit  is  that  he 
adds  dates  which  Machiavelli  did  not  give. 

There  is  as  much  difference  in  their  mode  of  applying  the 
three  horns  plucked  up  before  the  little  one — the  Pope.  Mr. 
11 


122  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27* 

Mede  makes  them  the  Greeks  at  Ravenna,  the  Lombards, 
and  the  Franks.  Sir  Isaac  Newton  makes  them  the  exar- 
chate of  Ravenna,  the  kingdom  of  Lombardy,  and  the  senate 
of  Rome.  Concerning  the  first  of  these.  Bishop  Newton 
justly  remarks,  p.  217,  that  "  the  Franks  or  Germans  in  Italy 
were  not  extirpated^  eradicated,  nor  their  dominions  annexed 
to  that  of  the  popes."  Concerning  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  cata- 
logue of  the  three,  he  also  justly  remarks,  that  "  the  senate  of 
Rome  is  not  included  in  his  catalogue  of  the  ten  kingdoms." 
Bishop  Newton  agrees  here  with  Sir  Isaac,  but  he  includes 
the  senate  of  Rom.e  among  the  ten  kingdoms,  in  which  he  dif- 
fers considerably  from  Sir  Isaac — reckoning  four  not  found 
in  Sir  Isaac,  viz.  Senate  of  Rome,  Alemanes  in  Germany, 
Goths  in  Spain,  and  Saxons ;  and  omitting  four  found  in  Sir 
Isaac,  viz.  Vandals  in  Spain,  Suevians  in  Spain,  Visigoths, 
and  Alans  in  Gallia.  The  application  of  the  beast  with  ten 
horns  to  the  Roman  empire  is  beset  then  by  no  fewer  diffi- 
culties and  perplexities  than  is  its  application  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Alexander's  successors  ;  and  if  any,  from  the  diffi- 
culties attending  its  application  to  the  government  of  Alex- 
ander's successors,  might  be  led  to  look  for  its  application  to 
Rome,  they  find  the  way  no  clearer  nor  straighter.  So  far, 
however,  as  difficulty  has  been  felt  in  respect  to  finding  what 
can  be  regarded  as  adequately  answering  to  the  ten  horns 
and  the  little  horn  in  the  dynasty  that  succeeded  Alexander, 
including  that  of  the  Seleucidae,  it  is  hoped  that  such  diffi- 
culty has  been  obviated  by  the  last  of  the  explanations  there 
given.  Having  thus  reviewed  the  reasons  that  have  led  many 
to  apply  this  vision  of  the  fourth  beast  and  his  ten  horns  to 
the  kingdom  of  Rome,  and  to  the  ten  kingdoms  in  which  it 
was  finally  broken,  (and  who  does  not  here  feel  also  the  harsh- 
ness of  considering  both  the  beast  a  kingdom,  and  his  horns 
kingdoms  ?)  we  come  to  consider  more  closely  the  particulars 
of  the  description  of  the  beast  as  given  in  the  vision.     What- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7*.  7 21.  123 

ever  other  difficulties  of  importance  have  been  felt  in  respect 
to  its  application  to  the  government  of  Alexander's  successors, 
it  is  hoped  they  will  be  removed  as  we  pass  along. 

The  more  particular  description  of  the  Fourth  Beast,  and 
the  Little  Horn. 

It  was  "dreadful  and  terrible,  and  strong  exceedingly; 
and  it  had  great  iron  teeth  :  it  devoured  and  break  in  pieces, 
and  stamped  the  residue  with  the  feet  of  it :  and  it  was  diverse 
from  all  the  beasts  that  were  before  it."  It  was  "  exceeding 
dreadful,  whose  teeth  were  of  iron,  and  his  nails  of  brass," 
and  the  angel  said  of  it,  "  he  shall  devour  the  whole  earth, 
and  shall  tread  it  down,  and  break  it  in  pieces,"  vs.  7,  19,23. 
The  world  never  suffered  more  than,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
under  the  reign  of  Alexander's  successors,  in  their  mutual 
contests  for  the  supremacy  both  before  and  after  the  partition 
of  the  kingdom  301  B.  C,  and  in  their  oppressive  treatment 
of  their  provinces.  In  the  long  warfare  between  the  kings 
of  Syria  and  Egypt,  and  during  the  reign  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  Palestine,  especially,  was  made  the  thoroughfare 
for  armies,  and  often  the  scene  of  the  most  wanton  spolia- 
tion and  destruction.  What  can  be  more  appropriate  in  de- 
scribing the  authors  of  all  this  ruin,  than  the  image  of  the 
beast  with  teeth  of  iron,  and  claws  of  brass,  tearing  and  de- 
vouring his  prey  ?  What  can  more  fitly  describe  the  con- 
duct of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  than  a  beast  which  destroyed 
what  remained  more  than  sufficient  to  satisfy  its  hunger,  and 
rendered  it  unfit  for  others  1 — like  the  imagery  in  Ezek.  34: 
18 — "  Seemeth  it  a  small  thing  unto  you  to  have  eaten  up 
the  good  pasture,  but  ye  must  tread  down  with  your  feet  the 
residue  of  your  pastures  ?  and  to  have  drunk  of  the  deep  wa- 
ters, but  ye  must  foul  the  residue  with  your  feet?"  This 
kingdom  was  worse  than  the  others,  as  the  tyranny  of  many 
is  worse  than  of  one  ;  and  it  lasted  longer  than  Alexander's, 


124  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

longer  even  than  the  Persian  or  the  Chaldean.  There  is  con- 
firmation of  the  application  of  all  this  to  the  dynasty  of  Alex- 
ander's successors,  in  language  used  by  the  author  of  the 
first  history  of  the  Maccabees — who,  when  he  had  mentioned 
the  fact  of  Alexander's  servants  putting  crowns  on  themselves, 
and  likewise  their  sons  after  them,  adds — "  and  evils  were 
multiplied  in  the  earth.'''' 

The  monarchy  was  "  diverse"  from  those  which  preceded 
it,  in  respect  to  its  being  not  under  one  king,  but  under  ma- 
ny who  were  often  allied  together  as  one  over  different  divi- 
sions of  one  great  kingdom.  It  was  diverse  in  respect  to  its 
being  strong  and  weak,  united  and  divided,  See  on  chap.  ii. 
The  little  horn  itself  was  diverse  from  the  others  in  respect 
to  its  greater  cruelty.  While  it  was  terrible  to  the  whole 
earth,  it  was  "  exceedingly"  so  to  the  Jews,  driving  them  in 
fear  out  of  their  land  ;  compelling  them  to  bow  down  to  abom- 
inable idols,  and  to  eat  abominable  meats  ;  commissioning  its 
armies  to  take  away  their  memorial  out  of  Jeiusalem,  and 
plant  foreigners  in  their  place,  (1  Mace.  3:  35.)  By  no  other 
kings  whatever,  by  none  of  the  other  successors  of  Alexan- 
der, were  they  so  treated.  But  to  add  no  more,  let  the  read- 
er turn  again  toll:  16,  23,  24,  26,  etc.,  and  8:  23,  24,  and 
re-peruse  the  facts  adduced  from  authentic  history  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  those  verses,  and  he  will  judge  for  himself 
whether  this  description  of  the  beast  has  not  its  fulfilment  in 
the  government  of  Alexander's  successors,  especially  of  the 
Seleucidae,  and  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  one  of  the  Seleuci- 
dae.  He  will  also  judge  for  himself  whether  the  assertion 
made  by  Bishop  Newton  and  others,  (Prophecies,  p.  206,) 
that  "  the  kingdoms  of  the  Seleucidae  and  of  the  Lagidae  can 
in  no  respect  answer  to  this  description  of  the  fourth  beast  or 
kingdom,"  is  any  more  accurate  than  the  same  assertion  con- 
cerning 11:  31 — 35,  (Interpr.  p.  53,)  and  concerning  8:  9 — 
12,  (Interpr.  p.  77.)  It  is  strange  that  he  should  say,  "in- 
stead of  subduing  other  kingdoms,  they  tore  to  pieces  their 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27.  125 

own,"  that  he  should  interpret  the  phrase  "  diverse  from  all 
kingdoms"   as  meaning  only  a  different  constitution   of  gov- 
ernment, and  find   a  want  of  correspondence  here  because 
Egypt  and  Syria  were  equally  absolute  monarchies  with  the 
others  that  had  preceded  them  ;  that  he  should  assert  the  im- 
possibility of  applying  to  them  the  phrase  "  it  shall  devour 
the  whole  earth,"  etc.  because  "  so  far  from  enlarging  their 
dominions,  they  could  not  preserve  what  was  left  them  by 
their  ancestors."     True,  they  tore  to  pieces  their  own  king- 
doms,  but  not  until  they  had  torn  to  pieces  others.     True, 
some  of  the  race  of  the  Syrian  and  Egyptian  kings  could  not 
preserve   what  was  left  them  by  their  ancestors.     But  it  is 
enough  to  fulfil  the  prediction,  if  their  ancestors  were  estab- 
lished in  the  empire  of  the  East,  even  though  some  who  came 
after  them  could  not  keep  it.     The  dominion  of  the  king  of 
Syria  is  called  "  a  great  dominion"  by  the  prophet,  11:5,  and 
precisely  the  same  language  and  no  more  is  used  in  describ- 
ing Alexander's,  viz.   "  he  shall  rule  with  greit  dominion," 
11:  3.     The  qualifying  remark  is  indeed  added  in  11:  4,  that 
"  not  according  to  his  dominion,"  shall  they  rule.     No  one 
of  them  should  have  his  entire  kingdom,  no  one  and  not  all 
of  them  together  rule  with  such  glory,  none  make  so  rapid 
and  so  wide  conquests.     But  still  history  affirms  that  Seleu- 
cus,  the  head  of  the  Syrian  dynasty,  had  all  the  Persian  em- 
pire in  the  east  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Indus,  and  much 
between  the  Euphrates  and  the  Mediterranean.     Even  Anti- 
ochus  Epiphanes  was  at  one  time  master  of  Assyria,  Persia, 
Armenia,  Syria,  Palestine,  and  all  Egypt  but  Alexandria.    To 
him  were  they  tributary.     The  prophet  speaking  of  him  also, 
says  that  he  "  waxed  exceeding  great,"  that  "  his  power  shall 
be  mighty,"  and  "  he  shall  become  strong  with  a  small  peo- 
ple."   No  more  than  this  does  he  say  of  Alexander,  the  mon- 
arch of  the  world.  See  8:  8, 9,  24.   11:  3,  23.     If  the  objec- 
tion were  worth  anything  at  all,  it  would  apply  as  well  to 
Rome,  which  could  not  pass  the  boundary  of  the  Euphrates, 
11* 


126  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

and  many  of  whose  kings  could  not  preserve  what  was  left 
them  by  their  ancestors,  nor  many  of  the  popes  what  was  left 
the  church  by  their  predecessors. 

The  description  is  further  continued,  that  in  the  little  horn 
*'  were  eyes  like  the  eyes  of  man,  a  look  more  stout  than  his 
fellows,  and  a  mouth  speaking  great  things."  The  prophet 
heard  **the  voice  of  the  great  words  which  the  horn  spake." 
It  "  made  war  with  the  saints,  and  prevailed  against  them." 
And  the  angel  said  of  him,  "  he  shall  speak  great  words 
against  the  Most  High,  and  shall  wear  out  the  saints  of  the 
Most  High,  and  think  to  change  times  and  laws,"  vs.  8,  11, 
20,  21,  25. 

This  little  horn,  as  has  been  shown,  being  the  emblem  of 
the  dynasty  of  the  Seleucidae — the  race  of  the  kings  of  Sy- 
ria— and  Antiochus  Epiphanes  being  of  that  race,  the  gene- 
ral description  is  parallel  to  8:  23 — 25,  and  11:  22,  23,  31, 
33,  36,  37.  The  phrase  "  eyes  of  man"  denotes  human  sa- 
gacity and  wisdom,  for  which  Antiochus  Epiphanes  w^as  no- 
ted, (see  11:  21,  24,  25.)  The  ''stouter  look"  means  the 
prouder  mien,  the  more  boastful  bearing,  of  the  king — in  col- 
loquial phrase  it  is  to  look  big.  All  this  appeared  particular- 
ly in  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  in  the  greater  pomp  of  the 
race  of  the  Syrian  kings  who  became  strong  above  their  co- 
temporaries — above  the  kings  of  Egypt,  and  the  other  succes- 
sors of  Alexander,  with  whom  they  shared  the  kingdom, 
Comp.  11:  5.  His  blasphemy  and  resolving  to  change  times 
[set  times  or  observances]  and  laws,  have  been  illustrated  un- 
der 11:  30,  31,  36—39,*  and  none  can  fwl  to  see  that  here 
too,  the  correspondence  is  perfect,  the  application  easy  and 
unforced. 

It  is  added  that  "the  saints  of  the  Most  High  shall  be  giv- 
en into  his  hand  until  a  time,  and  times,  and  the  dividing  of 
time,"  V.  25.  What  is  the  period  here  mentioned  ?  There 
are  two  passages  in  Daniel  where  the  word  "  times"  means 

*  Interpretation,  pp.  39 — 42,  55—57. 


=^^tac  LIB/?/ 

^  OF  TBE         ' 

INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  7:  Ar*^'  1^ 

years — the  first  in  chap.  4:  16,  23,  25,  32,  whel^predictiftg  *^ 
Nebuchadnezzar's  insanity,  the  prophet  says,  "  they  shall 
make  thee  to  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  seven  times  shall  pass 
over  thee."  Here  the  phrase  seven  times,  means  in  each  of 
these  verses  indisputably  seven  years ;  they  can  mean  no- 
thing else.  It  is  found  again  in  11:  13,  where  the  phrase 
translated  "  after  certain  years,"  is  literally  at  the  end  of  the 
times  years,  i.  e.  times,  viz.  years,  (the  phraseology  being 
like  that  in  8:  13,  "  the  vision  the  daily  sacrifice,"  or  it  may 
be  simply,  at  the  end  of  years  time.  The  word  is  found  also 
in  12:  7,  where  the  phraseology  is  the  same  with  this  in  chap. 
vii.  It  occurs  again  in  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  12:  14, 
with  the  same  phraseology  of  time,  times  and  a  half  It  is 
found  in  many  places  in  the  Bible  in  the  sense  of  opportuni- 
ty, season,  set  season.  But  there  is  no  authority,  whether 
expressed  or  implied,  in  the  whole  Bible,  which  sanctions  the 
use  of  the  word  "  times"  in  any  other  sense  than  years,  when 
it  is  put  for  a  definite  portion  of  duration.  There  is  no  other 
clew  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  when  thus  used,  except  that 
which  is  found  in  the  above  two  passages  in  Dan.  iv.  and  xi, 
and  perhaps  in  the  first  alone.  There  is  even  no  tradition  of 
any  other  use  except  that  which  has  sprung  up  since  the 
Christian  era,  and  the  application  of  this  prophecy  to  Rome. 
The  writers  who  thus  apply  the  prophecy  make  the  time, 
times,  and  a  half,  something  which  they  cd\\  prophetic  years ; 
first  turning  the  years  into  days  with  360  to  a  year,  and  then 
making  the  days  prophetic  days,  i.e.  1260  years.  This  dou- 
ble transformation  is  only  twofold  less  probable  than  that 
which  has  already  been  dwelt  on  respecting  the  2300  days  in 
8: 14  ;  and  it  has  the  less  recommendation  that  the  angel  seems 
to  give  the  prophet  ^puzzle,  rather  than  an  intelligible  designa- 
tion of  time  like  all  the  other  designations  of  time  in  the  pro- 
phecies, and  such  as  accords  with  the  intelligible  description 
of  events  in  connexion  with  those  designations  of  time.  We 
must  therefore  understand  the  designation  of  "  time,  times, 


128  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27. 

and  a  dividing  of  time,"  as  three  literal  years,  and  a  half 
portion  of  a  year — not  an  exact  half  necessarily  ;  for  accord- 
ing to  scriptural  usage  it  may  be  a  little  more  or  a  little  less, 
Comp.  Exod.  24:  6.  1  Kings  16:  21.  Num.  13:  24,  Zech. 
14:2. 

It  has  appeared  under  11:  30 — 35,  that  from  the  setting  up 
of  the  abomination  of  desolation  in  the  temple  during  the  reign 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  to  the  dedication  of  Judas  Maccabe- 
us and  his  followers,  there  were  precisely  three  years.  So  it  is 
asserted  in  the  histories  of  the  Maccabees,  and  so  Josephus 
asserts  it  in  his  Antiquities,  B.  X.  c.  11,  sec.  7,  and  B.  XII. 
c.  7,  sec.  6.  But  previous  to  this  final  act  of  desecration ; 
between  it  and  the  apostasy  under  Menelaus,  there  was  ano- 
ther desecration  by  Apollonius,  the  same  year  with  the  final 
one.  At  that  desecration  by  Apollonius,  the  daily  sacrifice 
was  taken  away,  and  many  other  acts  of  oppression  and  cru- 
elty were  done,  1  Mace.  1:  38 — 40.  It  took  place  on  the 
return  of  Antiochus  from  his  last  and  unsuccessful  expedition 
into  Egypt.  He  started  on  that  expedition  168  B.  C,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  spring,*  and  as  he  marched  with  all  speed 
toward  Alexandria,  and  after  meeting  the  Roman  ambassa- 
dors some  miles  above  the  city  left  the  country  again  with 
despatch,  he  doubtless  reached  Palestine  by  the  last  of  the  en- 
suing May,  if  not  earlier.  He  himself  kept  directly  on  to 
Antioch,  while  he  detached  Apollonius  to  ravage  and  lay 
waste  the  city  and  temple.  Apollonius  reaching  Jerusalem 
about  the  first  of  June,  between  six  and  seven  months  earli- 
er than  the  final  act  of  desecration,  it  would  make  the  period 
three  years  and  about  a  half.  Now  though  there  is  given  in  the 
histories  of  the  Maccabees  only  the  period  of  three  years,  and 
though  Josephus  in  his  Antiquities  names  the  same  period, 
there  is  adequate  reason  for  the  date  of  the  three  years  and  a 

*  The  Roman  historian  Livy,  mentions  this  time,  as  quoted  by  Pri- 
deaux,  Vol.  II.  p.  120. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27.  129 

half  as  mentioned  by  Daniel.  The  others  date  from  the  setting 
up  of  tlie  ahominntion  of  desolation^  which  was  the  deed  on 
which  they  looked  with  most  horror.  Daniel  dates  in  this 
place  from  the  saints  being  given  into  the  hand  of  the  Syrian 
king, — an  event  which  may  well  be  assigned  pre-eminently 
to  the  times  of  Apollonius.  The  writers  of  the  books  of 
the  Maccabees  speak  of  those  times  in  a  manner  which  shows 
they  regarded  the  desecration  by  Apollonius  as  an  era  in  the 
history  of  their  nation,  1  Mace.  1:  39.  2  Mace.  5:  25 — ^27. 
comp.  with  6:  1.*  And  to  confirm  the  point  in  question  fully, 
there  is  also  given  by  Josephus  himself  the  period  of  three 
years  and  a  half,  in  his  History  of  the  Wars  of  the  Jews,  B. 
i.  c.  1.  sec.  1,  and  B.  v.  c.  9.  sec.  4.  And  even  in  his  An- 
tiquities, as  we  have  seen  at  the  close  of  the  interpretation  of 
chap,  viii,  he  gives  the  period  of  1296  days  (a  slightly  erro- 
neous quotation  of  the  1290  in  12;  11,)  along  with  the  three 
years — the  first  doubtless  as  the  period  reckoning  from  the 
taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice — which  was  not  three  years 
and  seven  months,  reckoning  by  the  lunar  method  with  the 
addition  of  the  intercalary  month,  or  by  the  method  of  365 
days  to  the  year  ;  just  three  years  and  seven  months,  reckon- 
ing by  360  days  to  the  year.  It  deserves  also  to  be  borne  m 
mind,  that  this  date  is  the  first  given  in  the  order  of  the  pro- 
phecies. These  three  years  and  a  half  were  the  period  of  the 
greatest  sufferings  of  the  Jews,  and  their  darkest  hours.  In 
the  vision  following  this,  chap,  viii,  we  have  seen  that  another 
and  longer  period  is  given  which  includes  the  beginning  of 
the  series  of  desecrations.  The  prophet  does  not  give  the 
period  of  the  three  years  mentioned  by  Josephus,  etc.,  because 
the  desecration  was  virtually  effected  when  the  daily  sacrifice 


*  It  was  mentioned  under  8:  14,  in  respect  to  the  reckoning  of  1150 
days,  that  Apollonius  probably  did  not  wait  long  before  he  accom- 
plished the  work  on  which  he  was  sent.  In  2  Mace.  5:  25  above  quo- 
ted it  reads,  "  who  coming  to  Jerusalem  and  pretending  peace,  did  for- 
bear till  the  holy  day  of  the  Sahhath,"  etc. 


130  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  7*.  7 27. 

was  taken  aioai/,  and  the  setting  up  of  the  abomination  of  des- 
olation was  in  reality  but  a  circumstance  beside — it  was  but 
the  seal  and  token  of  the  impious  work  already  done.  The 
correspondence,  then,  between  the  period  of  time  mentioned 
chap,  vii,  and  the  duration  of  the  signal  desecration  and  ca- 
lamities under  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  points  to 
him,  and  in  him  to  the  race  of  the  kings  of  Syria,  as  the  king 
and  dynasty  meant  by  the  angel  in  his  explanation  of  the  vi- 
sion, viz. — "  another  shall  rise  after  them and  he  shall 

wear  out  the  saints  of  the  Most  High, and  they  shall 

be  given  into  his  hand  until  a  time  and  times  and  the  divid- 
ing of  time."  Not  less  conclusive  does  it  seem  to  be,  that 
the  forced  and  unauthorized  interpretation  of  the  times  for 
years,  and  of  the  days  in  those  years  for  so  many  years,  is 
an  insuperable  objection  to  the  application  so  many  make 
of  this  vision  to  civil  and  ecclesiastical  Rome. 


The  doom  of  the  Fourth  Beast,  and  the  end  of  the  domin- 
ion of  the  Little  Horn. 

This  is  given  in  vs.  9 — 11,  and  in  26  comp.  with  21,22. 
The  translation  "  till  the  thrones  were  cast  down,"  conveys 
at  first  the  idea  of  the  overthrow  of  the  empires  represented 
by  the  four  beasts.  But  both  the  context  requires,  and  the 
original  gives  the  sense,  till  seats  were  placed,  i.  e.  for  the 
judge,  "the  ancient  of  days,"  on  one  of  which  he  sat.  It  is 
interpreted  in  v.  26,  "  the  judgment  shall  sit" — it  is  also  ex- 
changed, V.  10,  for  the  phrase  "  the  judgment  was  set,"  i.  e. 
the  tribunal  sat,  the  judge  and  those  associated  with  him  in 
giving  judgment  took  their  seats.  The  phrase  "  Ancient  of 
days,"  though  it  undoubtedly  designates  the  Eternal,  presents 
the  form  of  an  aged  person.  His  robe  white  as  snow,  and 
the  hair  of  his  head  like  the  pure  wool,  denote,  like  "  spotless 
ermine,"  the  perfect  impartiality  and  integrity  of  the  judge  ; 
his  throne  which  was  a  fiery  flame,  and  the  wheels  on  which  it 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27.  131 

moved,  which  were  burning  fire,  his  swift  and  searching  and 
fearful  judgments  (comp.  Ezek.  1:  15,  etc.);  the  stream  of 
fire  which  issued  from  before  him  denotes  his  consuming  pow- 
er exercised  against  the  guilty  (comp.  Deut.  4:  24,  and  Heb. 
12:  29,  "  Our  God  is  a  consuming  fire") ;  the  multitude  of  his 
ministering  attendants,  the  splendor  of  his  court  and  the  ma- 
jesty of  his  reign ;  the  opening  of  the  books,  his  examina- 
tion of  deeds  done,  and  of  the  law  and  sentence  to  be  recited. 
The  whole  scene  has  for  its  ground-work  the  appearance  of 
the  Sanhedrim  of  the  Jews,  where  the  president  of  the  coun- 
cil sat,  with  a  vice-president  on  his  right  and  left,  and  the 
other  senators  ranged  in  order  at  each  side.  To  this  council 
belonged  the  power  of  judging  in  capital  cases,  and  the  general 
affairs  of  the  nation  were  brought  before  it.  The  prophet  con- 
tinued beholding,  until  the  sentence  was  executed  on  the 
beast,  that  he  should  be  slain,  and  his  body  given  to  the  burn- 
ing flame  and  destroyed — Comp.  the  words  of  our  Savior, 
Matt.  5:  22,  "  whosoe^^er  shall  say.  Thou  fool,  shall  be  in 
danger  of  hellfire ;"  where  the  imagery  which  he  employs  to 
denote  the  punishment  of  sin  is  taken  from  the  valley  of  Hin- 
nom,  which  was  the  place  of  public  executions,  and  in  which 
fire  was  constantly  kept  burning  to  consume  the  dead  carcas- 
ses that  were  there  thrown.  This  doom  of  the  beast,  ex- 
pressed, like  the  character  of  the  beast,  in  so  figurative  lan- 
guage, is  explained  by  the  angel  in  v.  26 — ''The  tribunal 
shall  sit,  and  they  shall  take  away  his  dominion,  [his  domin- 
ion shall  be  taken  away, — See  for  the  phraseology  verse  5,]  to 
consume  and  to  destroy  it  unto  the  end."  The  actual  burn- 
ing of  the  king  and  of  his  dominions  by  fire  is  of  course  no 
more  taught  than  his  being  literally  a  beast  with  teeth  of  iron 
and  claws  of  brass,  nor  is  the  spectacle  of  the  judgment  here 
spoken  of  to  take  place  literally,  any  more  than  the  literal  ap- 
pearance of  a  horn  with  eyes,  and  its  articulation  of  words. 
The  prophet  gives  a  vision,  he  does  not  state  facts  and  oc- 


132  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

currences  which  shall  take  place  in  the  outward  form  in  which 
he  sees  them. 

Now  is  the  language  of  this  vision  in  vs.  9 — 11,  of  too  high 
a  character  to  be  applied  to  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom 
of  Alexander's  successors,  including  the  dominions  of  the 
kings  of  Syria  ?  Certainly  the  language  of  verse  26,  which 
the  angel  gives  as  the  explanation  of  the  vision,  may  consis- 
tently and  adequately  express  no  more  than  that  destruction. 
There  is  no  idea  of  literal  burning  conveyed  by  the  word 
"  consume."  There  is  no  such  peculiarity  in  the  phrase, 
"  the  judgment  shall  sit,"  as  to  make  it  a  literal  and  formal 
scene;  for  similar  phraseology  is  found  in  Joel  3:  12,  where 
no  such  idea  is  conveyed — "  Let  the  heathen  be  awakened, 
and  come  up  to  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat :  for  there  will  I  sit 
to  judge  all  the  heathen  round  about."  Taking  the  explana- 
tion, therefore,  given  by  the  angel  of  the  doom  of  the  beast, 
there  is,  as  we  shall  see,  a  perfect  correspondence  between 
the  prophecy  and  the  facts  of  history.  But  that  we  may  go 
to  those  facts,  without  having  the  mind  enveloped  in  any  ob- 
scurity as  to  the  nature  of  the  figurative  language  employed 
in  vs.  9 — 11,  let  us  look  first  at  a  few  parallel  passages,  in  the 
light  of  which  we  shall  clearly  see  that  such  language  may 
be  employed  to  denote  the  fall  of  an  earthly  kingdom. 

Saith  the  Psalmist,  (or  Asaph  for  him,)  on  the  occasion  of 
his  coming  to  the  kingdom  after  Saul's  death,  Ps.  Ixxv, 
"  When  I  shall  receive  the  congregation,  I  will  judge  up- 
rightly. The  earth  [the  land]  and  all  the  inhabitants  thereof 
are  dissolved  [the  government  under  Saul's  administration 
had  fallen  almost  into  dissolution]  :  I  bear  up  the  pillars  of 
it  [I  will  set  up  the  pillars  of  the  kingdom  on  their  base,  and 
make  things  firm  again].  I  said  unto  the  fools  ....  Lift 
not  up  your  horn  on  high  ....  For  promotion  cometh  neither 
from  the  east,  nor  from  the  west,  nor  from  the  south.  But 
God  is  the  judge :  he  putteth  down  one,  and  setteth  up  ano- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27.  133 

ther.  [The  Psalmist  expresses  this  truth  with  particular  ap- 
plication to  Saul's  overthrow,  and  his  own  elevation  to  the 
kingdom.]  For  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord  there  is  a  cup,  and 
the  wine  is  red  :  it  is  full  of  mixture,  and  he  poureth  out  the 
same ;  but  the  dregs  thereof  all  the  wicked  of  the  earth  shall 
wring  them  out  and  drink  them.  [God  thus  pours  out  his 
judgments  when  he  sits  in  judgment ;  and  the  Psalmist  means 
to  assert  the  fact  with  particular  application  to  the  death  of 
Saul — See  1  Chron.  10:  13,  14 — and  to  the  ruin  of  the  par- 
ties opposed  to  his  own  reign  and  attached  to  the  house  of 
Saul,  See  2  Sam.  2:  8—3:  1.]  All  the  horns  of  the  wicked 
also  will  I  cut  off;  but  the  horns  of  the  righteous  shall  be  ex- 
alted. [David  says  he  would  remove  the  unworthy  from 
places  of  trust  and  authority,  and  exalt  the  righteous  in  their 
stead.] 

Saith  Moses  in  blessing  the  children  of  Israel  before  his 
death,  "  The  Lord  came  from  Sinai,  and  rose  up  from  Seir 
unto  them  ;  he  shined  forth  from  mount  Paran,  and  he  came 
with  ten  thousands  of  saints  [holy  ones]  :  from  his  right  hand 
went  a  fiery  law  for  them,"  Deut.  33:  2,  comp.  with  Acts  7: 
53.  Gal.  3: 19.  Col.  2:  18.  Saith  the  prophet  Habakkuk, 
chap,  iii,  in  alarm  at  the  approach  of  the  Assyrian  king,  "  O 
Lord,  I  have  heard  thy  speech,  [the  threatening  that  the  Jews 
should  be  invaded  by  the  Chaldeans,  1:  6,]  and  was  afraid. 
O  Lord  revive  thy  work  in  the  midst  of  the  years  [do  now  as 
when  thou  broughtest  thy  people  out  of  Egypt,  and  destroyed 
their  enemies].  God  came  from  Teman,  and  the  Holy  One 
from  mount  Paran.  His  glory  covered  the  heavens,  and  the 
earth  was  full  of  his  praise.  And  his  brightness  was  as  the 
light ;  he  had  horns  coming  out  of  his  hand  [rays  were  stream- 
ing forth  from  his  hand] ;  and  there  was  the  hiding  of  his 
power.  Before  him  went  the  pestilence,  and  burning  coals 
went  forth  at  his  feet  [a  description  which  had  its  correspon- 
dence in  the  plagues  he  sent  upon  the  people].  He  stood 
and  measured  the  earth  [the  land] ;  he  beheld  and  drove 
12 


134  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

asunder  the  nations  [the  nations  occupying  the  land]  ;  and 
the  everlasting  mountains  were  scattered  and  the  perpetual 

hills  did  bow Thou  wentest  forth  for  the  salvation  of 

thy  people,  even  for  salvation  with  thine  anointed,"  [comp. 
Ps.  105:  14,  15,  He  suffered  no  man  to  do  them  wrong:  yea, 
he  reproved  kings  for  their  sakes,  saying,  Touch  not  mine 
anointed,  and  do  my  prophets  no  harm].  There  is  the 
language  also  of  Daniel  2:  21.  4:  25,  "  He  removeth  kings 
and  setteth  up  kings.  The  Most  High  ruleth  in  the  kingdom 
of  men,  and  giveth  it  to  whomsoever  he  will.  And  again, 
5:  26 — 28,  in  the  address  of  the  prophet  to  Belshazzar  in  in- 
terpretation of  "  Mene,  Mene,  Tekel,  Upharsin,"  [Upharsin 
is  only  another  form  of  the  word  Peres,  (Pheres,)  v.  28,  with 
the  Hebrew  conjunction  untranslated,]  ''  God  hath  numbered 
thy  kingdom  and  finished  it.  Thou  art  weighed  in  the  bal- 
ances, and  art  found  wanting.  Thy  kingdom  is  divided,  and 
given  to  the  Medes  and  Persians."  We  would  add  to  these 
especially  Ps.  xviii,  but  that  some  regard  it  as  typical,  and 
its  bearing  on  the  point  in  question  they  might  not  allow. 
Concerning  the  passages  already  quoted,  none  can  fail  to  see 
their  primary  and  sole  application  to  temporal  events — to  the 
concerns  of  earthly  kingdoms  —  to  the  dominions  of  the 
princes  of  this  world.  The  descriptions  are  none  the  less 
striking  and  majestic  than  those  in  the  vision  of  Daniel ;  they 
therefore  give  sanction  to  the  use  of  the  imagery  in  vs.  9 — 11, 
as  a  scenic  representation  of  the  event,  that  the  judge  of  all 
the  earth  and  God  of  nations  would  bring  to  an  end  and  de- 
stroy the  kingdom  which  should  so  long  and  grievously  op- 
press the  earth,  and  persecute  the  saints  of  the  Most  High. 

Now  we  have  seen  that  the  dominion  of  Antiochus  was  ta- 
ken away  ;  he  was  broken  without  hand,  he  came  to  his  end 
and  there  was  none  to  help  him.  But  more  than  this — the  Sy- 
rian race  of  kings,  of  which  he  was  one,  and  the  Syrian  king- 
dom over  which  he  and  others  of  the  descendants  of  Seleucus 
ruled,  perished.     Syria  was  subdued  by  Pompey  in  the  year 


INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27.  135 

65  B.  C,  and  made  a  Roman  province.  Antiochus  Asiati- 
cus  was  at  that  time  the  reigning  monarch.  He  petitioned 
the  Roman  general  to  be  restored  to  the  throne  of  his  fore- 
fathers, but  was  refused,  and  in  him  ended  the  kingdom  of 
the  Seleucidae,  after  it  had  existed  247  years  from  the  return 
of  Seleucus  to  Babylon,  or  the  epoch  of  the  Greeks  ;  nor  did 
it  ever  once  recover  from  the  blow.  But  this  was  not  the 
whole  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  The  entire  government  of 
all  Alexander's  successors — the  whole  beast — was  destroyed. 
We  have  seen  that  Lysimachus,  one  of  the  four  between 
whom  the  empire  was  finally  divided,  was  subdued,  and  his 
kingdom  swallowed  up  by  Seleucus.  The  sons  of  Cassan- 
der  also,  who  was  another  of  the  four,  were  all  cut  oflf  as  early 
as  294  B.  C,  and  Demetrius  son  of  Antigonus  got  the  king- 
dom in  their  stead  ;  but  he  too,  as  we  have  seen  was  cut  ofi* 
by  Seleucus  in  attempting  to  regain  his  father's  lost  dominions 
in  Asia.  His  sons  who  survived  him  on  the  throne  of  Mace- 
don,  reigned  until  168  B.  C,  when  Perseus  the  last  of  the 
dynasty  was  conquered  by  the  Romans,  led  through  Rome 
to  adorn  the  triumph  of  his  conqueror,  and  died  in  prison. 
Macedonia  was  at  that  time  only  put  under  tribute,  it  was  not 
made  a  Roman  province  ;  but  on  a  rise  of  the  people  about 
150  B.  C.  under  two  impostors  in  succession,  to  free  them- 
selves from  the  Romans,  they  were  reduced  to  a  province 
148  B.  C,  and  from  that  blow  never  recovered  nor  attempt- 
ed to  recover.  The  Macedonian  kingdom  was  thenceforth 
destroyed,  and  it  now  forms  a  part  of  Turkey  in  Europe. 
None  but  Egypt  remained  of  the  wide  dominion  of  the  beast, 
and  none  but  the  descendants  of  Ptolemy,  the  son  of  Lagus, 
survived  of  the  ten  horns.  That  also  was  destroyed  in  the 
year  30  B.  C.  by  Octavius  Caesar,  after  it  had  existed  alm.ost 
300  years  under  one  race  of  sovereigns  of  whom  Cleopatra, 
the  daughter  of  the  Ptolemies,  was  the  last,  and  who,  to  avoid 
the  disgrace  of  honoring  the  triumph  of  the  Roman,  put  an 
end  to  her  life  by  the  poisonous  bite  of  an  asp. 


136  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

The  prophet  says  that  "  as  concerning  the  rest  of  the 
beasts,  they  had  their  dominion  taken  away ;  yet  their  lives 
were  prolonged  for  a  season,  v.  12.  The  Babylonians,  after 
they  were  made  subject  to  Persia,  had  sufficient  strength  to 
revolt,  517  B.  C,  thirteen  years  after  the  death  of  Cyrus,  and 
set  up  a  king  of  their  own,  and  endure  a  siege  against  Darius 
the  son  of  Hystaspes  a  year  and  eight  months,  and  then  their 
was  taken  only  by  stratagem.  Its  one  hundred  gates 
were  taken  away,  its  walls  beat  down  from  two  hundred  and 
fifty  cubits  high  to  fifty,  that  the  people  might  no  more  revolt. 
From  that  time  it  decayed  rapidly  until  it  ended  in  "  perpet- 
ual desolations,"  Jer.  25:  9.  Persia  too,  in  seventy  years 
after  Seleucus  received  it  out  of  Alexander's  empire,  success- 
fully revolted  from  the  Syrian  power,  and  it  afterwards  formed 
a  part  of  the  Parthian  empire  linder  Arsaces,  which  continued 
down  to  A.  D.  229.  At  this  period  another  Persian  dynasty 
arose,  founded  by  Ardshir-Babekan,  or  Artaxerxes,  under 
which  Persia  again  extended  its  conquests  as  far  as  Asia  Mi- 
nor and  Egypt.  This  race  of  kings  continued  until  A.  D. 
636,  when  Persia  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Arabs  under  Ca- 
liph Omar,  and  afterwards  of  the  Turks,  and  continues  there 
to  this  day.*  The  kingdom  of  Alexander  also  as  such  had 
some  life,  after  its  dominion  was  taken  away  ;  for  one  of  his 
sons  was  permitted  to  hold  the  title  of  king  fourteen  years 
after  his  father's  death,  and  Macedon  was  in  form  the  seat  of 
power,  until  Cassander  put  the  young  king  to  death.  Not 
so  the  government  of  Alexander's  successors.  From  the  mo- 
ment they  were  subjected  to  others,  and  made  provinces, 
they  had  no  name  to  live,  they  had  no  vitality  left ;  no  re- 
prieve was  given  them,  sentence  of  excision  was  cast  on  them 
and  executed  more  immediately,  and  it  has  been  more  terri- 
ble, especially  in  respect  to  the  kingdoms  of  the  Lagidae 
and  the  Seleucidae — Egypt  and  Syria.  "  No  country  was 
more  celebrated  in  antiquity  than  Syria.     But  ignorance, 


Encyc.  Americ.  Art.  Persia. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27.  137 

superstition,  and  barbarism  now  cover  the  land,  and  no  tra- 
ces of  its  civilization  remain  but  ruins."  "  Egypt  was  once 
the  theatre  of  enterprise,  civilization  and  science,  and  pros- 
pered most  under  the  Ptolemies.  It  remained  in  the  hands 
of  the  Romans  670  years.  After  the  division  of  the  empire 
in  the  time  of  Theodosius,  Egypt  became  a  province  of  the 
Eastern  empire,  and  sunk  deeper  and  deeper  in  barbarism 
and  weakness,"  until  with  Syria  it  became  a  prey  to  the  fol- 
lowers of  Mohammed.*  These  two  kingdoms  of  the  Lagi- 
dae  and  the  Seleucidae,  the  most  glorious  of  those  which 
succeeded  Alexander's,  and  virtually  uniting  the  whole  of 
Alexander's  empire  in  Asia,  have  since  been  the  theatre  of 
the  most  destructive  wars  and  revolutions,  and  their  fate  has 
been  preeminently  more  dreadful,  their  doom  from  the  first 
more  irrevocable,  than  that  of  any  of  the  kingdoms  which 
preceded  them.  It  is  as  though  they  had  been  cleft  down 
with  the  sword,  and  their  carcasses  given  to  the  burning 
flame,  Comp.  Is.  29:  6 — the  language  of  the  prophet  to  Je- 
rusalem before  the  Captivity — "  Thou  shalt  be  visited  with 
the  flame  of  devouring  fire;"  and  again,  9:  19,  "The  people 
shall  be  as  the  fuel  of  the  fire."  And  even  when  the  Romans 
had  seized  those  kingdoms  out  of  the  hands  of  Alexander's 
successors,  the  nations  of  the  East  which  had  been  succes- 
sively swayed  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  Cyrus  and  Alexander,  re- 
covering themselves  from  their  oppressors,  remained  for  a 
yet  longer  season  still — the  Romans  being  unable  to  extend 
their  destructive  power  beyond  the  Euphrates — and  therefore 
could  be  said  to  have  had  their  lives  prolonged  for  a  season, 
after  the  kingdom  ichich  had  once  made  them  its  prey  was  ut- 
terly destroyed. 

The  reign  of  the  Son  of  Man  with  the  Saints. 
This  concludes  the  vision.     It  is  contained  in  vs.  13,  14, 
and  is  explained  by  the  angel  in  vs.  18,  22,  27.     It  is  to  be 

*  Encyc.  Amer.  Arts.  Syria,  Egypt. 


138  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27. 

observed,  first,  that  the  saints  who  are  to  possess  the  king- 
dom, are  the  same  people,  the  same  class,  with  those  against 
whom  the  little  horn  made  successfiil  war,  and  whom  the 
king  that  arose  after  the  ten  so  much  harassed.  They  were 
the  true  Israelites — the  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  and 
for  attachment  to  the  worship  of  God.  The  context  abso- 
lutely demands  this  application,  and  the  scope  of  the  prophecy 
is  not  only  that  they  should  be  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of 
their  oppressors,  but  reign  when  the  kingdom  of  their  op- 
pressors was  destroyed,  and  have  for  their  king  one  described 
in  the  vision  as  "  like  the  Son  of  man."  Of  course  the  Ro- 
mans cannot  be  here  meant,  as  some  have  supposed ;  for  they 
were  not  "  the  people  the  saints,"  persecuted  by  the  Syrian 
race  of  kings.  Such  an  application  must  be  at  once  seen  to  be 
inappropriate.  Nor  can  the  Jews  as  such  be  meant,  for  they 
did  not  come  into  the  possession  of  the  kingdom.  But  there 
was  one  who  appeared  in  Judea,  not  long  after  Egypt,  the 
last  of  the  kingdom  of  Alexander's  successors  had  fallen, 
and  he  so  spake  of  himself  as  to  intimate  that  he  was  the  very 
"  Son  of  man"  whom  the  prophet  saw  in  vision.  He  came 
in  the  form  of  a  servant,  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried ; 
but  he  rose  from  the  dead,  he  ascended  to  heaven  in  the  sight 
of  many  witnesses,  and  "  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their 
sight,"  Acts,  1:  9.  There  were  true  Israelites  who  received 
him  as  their  king.  In  a  single  day  three  thousand  were  ad- 
ded to  his  kingdom.  Acts  2:  41.  They  went  forth  into  all 
nations,  preaching  the  glad  news  of  the  kingdom,  persuading 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  until  the  kingdom  of  their  Lord  had 
become  co-extensive  with  the  whole  Roman  world,  and  had 
penetrated  beyond  it.  It  was  "  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord 
and  Savior  Jesus  Christ."  The  kingdom  so  long  and  so 
often  promised,  at  last  came  into  the  hands  of  the  true  people 
of  God.  Judgment  was  rendered  in  their  favor.  They  re- 
ceived not  indeed  a  temporal  kingdom,  not  a  temporal  delive- 
rance, but  a  spiritual  far  more  glorious  than  any  temporal — a 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 27.  139 

deliverance  shadowed  forth  by  a  temporal.  And  "  the  ful- 
ness of  time"  for  it  was  at  the  expiration  of  the  government 
that  had  so  long  oppressed  them.  It  has  proved  not  muta- 
ble and  short-lived  like  the  others  that  preceded  them,  but 
firm  and  enduring.  Nor  amid  all  the  convulsions  and  revo- 
lutions of  the  nations,  amid  all  the  efforts  of  principalities 
and  powers  to  destroy  it  in  its  infancy,  and  pluck  the  wings 
by  which  it  has  advanced  to  dominion,  has  its  dominion  been 
taken  away,  but  it  has  already  continued  longer  than  any 
other  kingdom  in  the  world.  The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  man,  was  built  by  its 
founder  on  a  rock  against  which  no  adverse  powers  have  pre- 
vailed, nor  can  prevail.  His  dominion  is  already  wide-spread, 
its  limits  were  never  more  extended  than  at  this  day.  It  is 
not  confined  to  a  narrow  province  like  Judea,  or  to  the  wid- 
est limits  of  any  earthly  kingdom,  but  reaching  forth  its  broad 
arms  literally  encompasses  the  globe ;  and  still  wider  con- 
quests are  to  be  made,  for  "  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put 
all  enemies  under  his  feet." 

The  order  of  objects  as  seen  in  this  vision,  confirms  the 
interpretation  given  above  to  the  fourth  beast,  as  that  inter- 
pretation gives  force  to  this  prophecy  respecting  the  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah.  The  Son  of  man  is  represented  as  coming 
to  the  Ancient  of  days  to  receive  the  kingdom  after  the 
fourth  beast  was  destroyed.  The  kingdom  was  given  to  the 
saints  after  the  four  kingdoms  had  all  passed  away.  When 
therefore  did  that  vision  concerning  the  Son  of  man  begin  to 
have  its  accomplishment  ?  When  did  Jesus  Christ  receive 
his  kingdom  ?  Need  the  numerous  passages  be  quoted  from 
the  New  Testament,  which  show  that  he  was  crowned  king 
when  he  ascended  to  God's  right  hand  1  that  he  then  receiv- 
ed his  royal  investiture  ?  that  his  kingdom  was  established 
almost  nineteen  centuries  ago  1  Did  not  Jesus  himself  say 
on  the  mount  of  ascension,  "  all  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  in  earth  ?     Matt.  28:  18.     Did  not  the  apostles 


140  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  7:  7 ^27. 

everywhere  proclaim  Jesus  as  reigning  at  the  very  time  when 
they  lived  ?  Now  by  the  application  of  this  vision  of  the 
fourth  beast  to  Rome,  and  by  looking  forward  for  the  king- 
dom of  the  Son  of  man  to  he  established,  these  nineteen  cen- 
turies of  the  past  reign  of  Christ  are  made  a  blank,  the  decla- 
rations of  the  New  Testament  inept  and  void,  and  Daniel  is 
made  not  to  prophecy  here  at  all  of  the  coming  of  the  Mes- 
siah when  he  appeared  first  in  Jerusalem.  And  Christian 
unites  with  Jew  in  asserting  that  the  Son  of  man  has  not  yet 
come.  This  is  the  great  error  of  the  theory  that  the  world 
is  to  be  destroyed  in  1843.  It  entirely  takes  away  this  pro- 
phecy of  Daniel  from  its  application  to  the  Christ  who  has 
already  come,  who  has  already  received  the  kingdom  from 
the  Father.  It  confounds  ihe  progress  of  the  kingdom  after 
it  is  established,  with  the  establishment  itself.  It  disregards 
the  explanation  by  our  Savior  that  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  like  leaven  which  a  woman  took  and  hid  in  three  measures 
of  meal  till  the  whole  was  leavened,"  Matt.  13:  33.  Surely 
if  there  had  been  a  prophecy  respecting  our  own  nation, 
previous  to  its  independence,  that  the  kingdom  should  be  giv- 
en to  it,  and  its  people  rule  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific, 
he  who  in  interpreting  the  prediction  should  now  say  that  the 
kingdom  had  not  yet  been  given  to  it,  and  that  the  prophecy 
was  yet  unfulfilled,  would  be  thought  to  equivocate,  or  not  to 
understand  it.  True  the  States  of  this  Union  do  not  yet 
stretch  out  as  far  as  the  Pacific,  but  the  kingdom  has  been 
given  to  us.  The  prophecy  would  not  now  be  all  fulfilled, 
but  still  the  dominion  has  been  given  to  the  people  of  these 
United  States.  So  has  the  kingdom  been  given  to  the  saints 
— ^they  reign  with  their  Lord,  though  not  yet  so  widely  and 
gloriously  as  they  shall  reign.  In  the  establishment  of  this 
kincfdom,  we  see  that  the  other  four  have  already  been  de- 
stroyed ;  for  the  dominion  was  given  to  the  Son  of  man  and 
to  the  saints  after  the  destruction  of  the  fourth  beast.  We 
see  too  that  men  in  departing  from  the  analogy  of  the  rise 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  II.  141 

and  progress  of  all  other  governments,  and  asserting  that  all 
this  prophecy  remains  to  be  yet  fulfilled,  have  failed  to  com- 
prehend its  real  meaning. 

The  vision  as  above  interpreted  affords  the  strongest  pos- 
sible testimony  that  the  Messiah  has  come,  by  fixing  the  pe- 
riod of  his  coming  at  the  close  of  the  dynasty  of  those  kings 
who  had  so  long  oppressed  the  people  of  God.  May  Jew  and 
Gentile,  as  they  peruse  the  prophecy,  and  behold  the  eviden- 
ces of  its  fulfilment  around  them,  and  the  signs  of  a  fulfilment 
still  wider  and  more  glorious,  bow  the  knee  to  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  and  receive  with  the  saints  that  kingdom  which  shall 
never  be  moved. 


SECTION  IV. 

INTERPRETATION  OF  CHAP.  II.  31—45. 

Nebuchadnezzar's  dream. 

A  deeply  interesting  spectacle  is  presented  in  this  chapter. 
The  youthful  Daniel  stands  before  the  greatest  monarch  of 
the  world,  pointing  upward  to  the  God  of  heaven,  revealing 
another  man's  untold  dream,  and  unfolding  the  events  of  fu- 
ture time.  In  the  second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign, 
(the  second  of  his  sole  reign,  which  was  the  Chaldean  mode 
of  computation,  but  the  fourth  or  fifth  from  his  being  asso- 
ciated with  his  father,  which  was  the  epoch  from  which  the 
Jews  reckoned,  (See  1:  I,  5  etc.  compared  with  remarks  on 
7:  4,)  this  monarch  "  dreamed  dreams ;"  probably  had  several 
unusual  dreams  in  the  course  of  the  night,  of  which  that 
mentioned  in  this  chapter  was  the  most  extraordinary,  and  ef- 
fectually broke  off  his  slumbers,  and  left  its  disturbing  influ- 
ences behind.    He  calls  together  his  wise  men — the  Magi  and 


142  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  II. 

the  Chaldean  astrologers  and  soothsayers — to  enable  him  to 
understand  the  dream,  and  he  commands  that  they  shall  re- 
veal the  dream  itself,  as  well  as  tell  the  interpretation.  It  is 
the  natural  impression  from  the  words  "  the  thing  is  gone 
from  me,"  vs.  5,  8,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  yb?'^o^  the  dream  ; 
but  many  suppose  that  this  phrase  should  read,  "  the  decree 
has  gone  forth  from  me  that  if  ye  will  not  make  known  the 
dream,  etc.  ye  shall  be  cut  in  pieces."  But  the  natural  im- 
pression is  confirmed  by  the  original ;  for  the  word  '*  decree" 
as  used  in  vs.  9,  13,  15  of  this  same  chapter  is  a  different 
word  from  that  translated  "  thing,"  and  the  same  word  found 
in  the  phrase  "  the  thing  is  gone  from  me,"  occurs  again  vs. 
10,  23,  where  it  is  properly  translated  "  the  king's  matter ^ 
Josephus  also  speaks  of  the  king  as  having  forgotten  the 
dream,  Antiq.  B.  x.  ch.  10.  sec.  3.  It  might  seem  strange 
that  so  remarkable  a  dream  should  be  forgotten,  but  other 
dreams  in  the  night,  and  the  events  of  the  morning  and  day, 
might  drive  much  of  it  from  the  mind,  and  only  an  indistinct 
image  remain.  For  a  dream  that  is  vivid  in  the  morning, 
we  often  find  it  impossible  to  recal  soon  after,  and  voluntary 
and  distinct  trains  of  thought,  unless  committed  immediately 
to  paper,  often  pass  soon  out  of  one's  mind.  The  king's  wise 
men  answered,  as  well  they  might,  that  they  were  unable  to 
do  what  the  king  required  ;  and  on  their  remonstrating 
against  the  unreasonableness  of  his  demands,  he  was  roused 
to  absolute  fury,  and  suspecting  doubtless  their  deceptive 
character,  and  impatient  of  contradiction  or  any  thwarting  of 
his  will,  he  issued  the  decree  that  all  the  wise  men  in  Baby- 
lon should  be  slain,  and  the  executioners  were  going  forth. 
Daniel  and  his  companions  were  already  numbered  among 
the  wise  men,  and  had  been  in  office  a  year  or  more,  1:  19, 
20.  The  decree  was  sudden,  like  most  things  done  by  des- 
pots, and  Daniel  knew  nothing  of  it,  until  he  was  sought  to 
be  slain.  On  learning  the  cause,  he  requested  of  the  king  a 
delay  of  the  sentence,  and  gave  assurance  that  he  would  re- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  II.  143 

veal  the  secret.  When  he  had  obtained  his  request,  he  went 
to  his  companions,  made  known  to  them  the  state  of  things, 
and  besought  their  supplications  concerning  the  matter  to  the 
God  of  heaven.  The  night  following,  the  monarch's  dream 
was  revealed  to  him  in  vision. 

The  phenomena  of  dreaming  have  baffled  the  acutest  in- 
quiries. There  may  be  some  general  laws  pertaining  to  them 
— that  dreams  are  influenced  by  the  principle  of  association ; 
(as  where  a  person  ill  and  with  draughts  applied  to  the  feet 
has  dreamed  of  standing  on  the  crater  of  Aetna ;)  that  they 
also  depend  somewhat  on  the  temper  of  mind,  on  character 
and  habits.  But  there  is  no  way  of  accounting  for  the  case 
before  us  except  by  supposing  that  God  must  have  produced 
the  images  both  on  Nebuchadnezzar's  mind,  and  on  Daniel's. 
And  yet  even  this  dream,  while  God  was  its  author,  followed 
in  some  degree  the  law  of  the  monarch's  disposition.  For 
as  Grotius  has  well  remarked,  (quoted  by  Bishop  Newton 
p.  201,)  "this  image  appeared  with  glorious  lustre  in  the 
imagination  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  whose  mind  was  wholly 
taken  up  with  admiration  of  worldly  pomp  and  splendor  ; 
whereas  the  same  monarchies  were  afterward  represented  to 
Daniel  under  the  shape  of  fierce  and  wild  beasts,  as  being  the 
great  supporters  of  idolatry  and  tyranny  in  the  world." 

Daniel  hastens  to  the  captain  of  the  king's  body-guard,  and 
by  him  was  brought  into  the  king's  presence.*     With  true 

*  Verse  25  reads  thus  :  "  Then  A  rioch  brought  in  Daniel  before  the 
king  in  haste,  and  said  thus  unto  him,  I  have  found  a  man  of  the  cap- 
tives of  Judah,  that  will  make  known  unto  the  king  the  interpreta- 
tion." Rosenmuller  remarks  on  this,  "  that  the  writer  seems  to  have 
forgotten  that  he  had  said  in  v.  16  that  Daniel  had  entered  the  pre- 
sence of  the  king,  to  obtain  a  reprieve  of  the  sentence,  and  an  in- 
terval of  time  at  the  expiration  of  which  he  would  tell  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  dream."  Now  the  text  is  very  easy  to  be  reconciled. 
Daniel  may  not  have  seen  the  king  personally  the  first  time,  but  ob- 
tained his  request  through  Arioch — ^just  as  the  centurion  in  Matt.  8:  5 
is  said  to  have  come  to  Jesus,  when  we  know  from  Luke  7:  3  that  he 


144  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEJL  2:  31 38. 

modesty  and  greatness,  having  disclaimed  any  ability  or  merit 
beyond  others,  and  ascribed  all  to  the  God  of  heaven  w^ho  re- 
veals it  for  others'  sakes  as  well  as  his  own,  he  proceeds  to 
tell  the  dream. 

31  Thou,  O  king,  sawest,  and  behold  a  great  image.  This  great 
image,  whose  brightness  was  excellent,  stood  before  thee  ;  and 

32  the  form  thereof  ?oa5  terrible.  This  image's  head  was  of  fine  gold, 
his  breast  and  his  arms  of  silver,  his  belly  and  his  thighs  of  brass, 

33  his   legs  of  iron,  his  feet  part  of  iron  and  part  of  clay.     Thou 

34  sawest  till  that  a  stone  was  cut  out  without  hands,  which  smote  the 
image  upon  his  feet  that  were  of  iron  and  clay,  and  brake  them  to 

35  pieces.  Then  was  the  iron,  the  clay,  the  brass,  the  silver,  and  the 
gold,  broken  to  pieces  together,  and  became  like  the  chaff  of  the 
summer  threshing-floors ;  and  the  wind  carried  them  away,  that  no 
place  was  found  for  them :  and  the  stone  that  smote  the  image 

36  became  a  great  mountain,  and  filled  the  whole  earth.  This  is  the 
dream;  and  we  will  tell  the  interpretation  thereof  before  the 
king. 

The  dream  will  need  no  remarks  except  what  will  be  made 
on  Daniel's  interpretation  of  it. 

37  Thou,  O  king,  art  a  king  of  kings  :  for  the  God  of  heaven  hath 

38  given  thee  a  kingdom,  power,  and  strength,  and  glory.  And 
wheresoever  the  children  of  men  dwell,  the  beasts  of  the  field  and 
the  fowls  of  the  heaven  hath  he  given  into  thine  hand,  and  hath 
made  thee  ruler  over  them  all.     Thou  art  this  head  of  gold. 

Nebuchadnezzar  the  represenflitive  and  founder  of  the 
Chaldean  monarchy,  being  thus  made  the  head,  the  prophet 
leaves  us  in  no  doubt  where  to  begin  the  series  of  kingdoms 
in  this,  and  in  the  other  prophecies.  For  the  illustration 
of  these  verses,  see  remarks  on  7:  4.  Compare  also  Jer.  27: 
5 — 7,  "  I  have  made  the  earth,  the  man  and  the  beast  that 
are  upon  the  ground,  by  my  great  power  and  by  my  out- 
stretched arm,  and  have  given  it  unto  whom  it  seemed  meet 

sent  some  Jewish  elders.  Josephus  also  explains  it  in  like  manner, 
Antiq.  x.  c.  10.  sec.  3. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  31 38.  145 

unto  me.  And  now  have  I  given  all  these  lands  into  the 
hand  of  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  of  Babylon,  my  vservant ; 
and  the  beasts  of  the  field  have  I  given  him  also  to  serve  him. 
And  all  nations  shall  serve  him,  and  his  son,  and  his  son's 
son,  until  the  very  time  of  his  land  come:  and  then  many 
nations  and  great  kings  shall  serve  themselves  of  him."  Of 
course  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach  that  literally  all  nations, 
and  the  lohole  habitable  world  were  given  into  his  hand,  but 
it  is  figurative  language  employed  to  describe  a  very  great  do- 
minion. 

The  "  head  of  gold"  is  an  appropriate  emblem  of  the  mag- 
nificence and  wealth  of  the  Chaldean  empire  under  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. He  built  the  prodigious  brick  walls  of  Babylon, 
which  according  to  Herodotus  formed  a  square,  and  were 
87  ft.  in  thickness,  350  feet  high,  and  60  miles  in  compass. 
In  each  of  the  four  sides  were  25  gates,  100  in  all,  which 
were  of  solid  brass.  Between  every  two  of  these  gates  were 
generally  but  not  always  three  towers,  and  one  at  each  of  the 
four  corners  of  the  walls,  and  three  between  each  corner  and 
the  next  gate  on  either  side,  250  in  all,  and  every  one  10  ft. 
higher  than  the  walls.  Outside  surrounding  the  wall  was  a 
vast  ditch,  from  which  the  clay  was  taken  to  make  the  bricks, 
and  which  also  made  the  city  inaccessible  to  an  enemy. 
From  the  twenly-five  gates  on  each  side  of  the  square  went 
25  streets  in  a  direct  line  over  to  the  opposite  gates,  thus 
making  50  streets,  each  15  miles  long  and  150  fl;.  wide  ;  and 
besides  these  were  four  streets  running  along  adjacent  to  the 
walls,  200  ft.  broad.  By  these  streets  the  city  was  divided 
into  676  squares,  each  2J  miles  in  compass,  and  round  these 
squares  on  every  side  stood  the  houses,  facing  the  street, 
three  or  four  stories  high,  and  greatly  adorned.  The  space 
within  each  of  the  squares  was  formed  into  yards,  gardens 
and  pleasure  grounds.  A  branch  of  the  river  Euphrates  ran 
through  the  city,  and  over  it  was  a  bridge  a  furlong  in  length, 
and  thirty  feet  in  breadth,  built  with  great  art  and  expense.  On 
13 


146  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  31 38. 

each  side  of  the  river,  within  the  city,  Nebuchadnezzar  built 
from  the  bed  of  the  river  a  great  wall  for  its  banks,  of  the 
same  thickness  with  the  walls  of  the  city,  and  over  against 
every  street  that  crossed  the  river  a  brazen  gate  in  the  wall, 
shut  by  night,  and  open  by  day,  with  stairs  leading  down  to 
the  river ;  and  this  river-wall  was  20  miles  in  extent,  reach- 
ing two  and  a  half  miles  beyond  the  city  on  each  side  where 
the  river  passed.  While  this  wall  on  either  bank  was  build- 
ing, the  river  was  turned  another  way  into  a  prodigious  arti- 
ficial lake  from  35  to  75  ft.  deep,  40  miles  square,  and  160 
miles  in  compass.  Into  this  lake  the  surplus  of  the  water 
flowed  in  time  of  freshet,  and  here  too  Cyrus  caused  the  river 
to  flow  when  he  took  the  city,  and  marched  up  the  bed  of  the 
river,  and  found  the  gates  not  shut  but  left  open  in  the  dissi- 
pation of  that  night.  Compare  on  7:  4. 

Another  great  work  was  the  temple  of  Belus,  all  of  which, 
however,  was  not  built  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  the  original 
tower  was  undoubtedly  the  tower  of  Babel.  It  was  more 
wonderful  than  any  of  the  pyramids,  smaller  indeed  by  100  ft. 
at  the  base,  but  higher  by  more  than  100  feet.  The  ascent 
was  by  steps  winding  up  the  outside,  which  formed  part  of 
the  structure  like  the  steps  of  the  pyramid ;  and  made  the 
whole  look  like  eight  towers  one  built  on  another,  and  each 
75  ft.  high.  The  upper  story  was  the  most  sacred  place,  and 
over  this  was  the  observatory  for  the  astronomers.  Nebu- 
chadnezzar enlarged  this  tower  by  vast  buildings  around  it 
in  the  form  of  a  square  a  mile  in  circumference,  and  on  the 
outside  of  the  square  was  a  wall  enclosing  the  whole.  Here 
Nebuchadnezzar  put  the  spoils  of  the  sanctuary  of  Jerusalem, 
which  he  plundered,  and  he  made  it  his  great  treasury,  Dan. 
1:  2.  It  stood  until  the  return  of  Xerxes  from  his  expedition 
into  Greece,  who  demolished  it,  having  first  taken  from  it  to 
counterbalance  the  expenses  of  his  invasion,  immense  trea- 
sures among  which  were  many  statues  of  massive  gold,  and 
one  40  ft.  high,  whose  single  value  was  at  least  12  millions  of 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  39.  147 

dollars,  and  which  with  a  pedestal  of  50  ft.  was  probably  the 
golden  image  set  up  for  worship  in  the  plain  of  Dura  near  the 
city,  3:  1,  etc.* 

Equally  wonderful  were  the  hanging-gardens  at  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's new  palace.  They  contained  a  square  of  400  ft.  on 
each  side,  and  were  terraced  up  till  the  highest  equalled  the 
height  of  the  wall  of  the  city,  the  ascent  being  from  terrace 
to  terrace  by  stairs  ten  feet  wide.  The  whole  pile  was  sus- 
tained by  vast  arches  built  upon  arches,  and  strengthened  by 
a  wall  22  ft.  thick,  surrounding  it  on  every  side.  The  floors 
on  the  top  of  these  arches  were  laid  in  the  following  manner : 
— they  were  flat  stones  16  ft.  long,  and  four  broad,  and  over 
them  was  a  layer  of  reed,  mixed  with  a  great  quantity  of  bitu- 
men, and  upon  the  reed  two  rows  of  bricks,  and  over  the 
whole  of  this  thick  sheets  of  lead.  Upon  the  lead  was  placed 
the  mould,  whose  moisture  it  was  the  design  of  the  previous 
preparation  to  preserve.  The  mould  was  of  sufficient  depth 
for  the  largest  trees,  and  an  engine  was  placed  at  the  top  to 
draw  water  from  the  river  for  the  garden.  Nebuchadnezzar 
did  not  live  long  enough  to  complete  all  his  works,  but  Nito- 
cris  his  daughter-in-law,  and  wife  of  Evil-merodach,  (see  on 
8:  1,)  carried  out  his  designs  in  a  manner  that  has  united  her 
fame  in  antient  history  with  the  splendor  of  the  Chaldean  em- 
pire.t 

39  And  after  thee  shall  arise  another  kingdom  inferior  to  thee,  and 
another  third  kingdom  of  brass,  which  shall  bear  rule  over  all  the 
earth. 

The  prophet  in  saying  *'  after  thee"  uses  king  as  synony- 

*  It  is  not  strange  that  the  antient  historians  should  speak  of  Xer- 
xes' immense  wealth  even  after  the  expenses  of  such  a  campaign,  see 
on  11:  2. 

t  Prideaux,  Vol.  1.  pp.  120—126.  Bib.  Repos.  Vol.  7.  pp.  364  etc. 
See  also  Is.  x,  and  xiv,  where  Babylon  is  called  "the  golden  city," 
and  the  glory  of  the  empire  is  exhibited  in  striking  contrast  with  its 
downfall. 


148  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  39. 

mous  with  kingdom,  see  on  8:  3.  He  means,  after  thy  king- 
dom.  Next  after  the  Chaldean  monarchy  was  the  Medo-Per- 
sian,  signified  in  the  image  or  colossus  by  the  breast  and  arms 
of  silver ;  and  next  after  the  Medo-Persian  was  the  Grecian 
under  Alexander,  represented  by  the  belly  and  thighs  of  brass. 
The  Persian  empire  at  its  height  of  glory  was  inferior  to 
the  empire  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  silver  is  inferior  to  gold  ; 
it  made  not  such  far  conquest,  it  was  neither  so  powerful  nor 
so  rich.  The  dominion  of  Greece  under  Alexander  was  after 
all  but  the  acquisition  of  the  degenerated  empire  of  Persia  ; 
and  though  in  the  fame  of  its  rapid  and  far  exploits  it  has 
shone  more  brightly,  the  empire  itself  was  as  inferior  to  the 
Persian  as  that  to  the  Babylonian.  Alexander,  had  he  lived, 
would  probably  have  outdone  his  Eastern  predecessors  in 
great  public  works,  and  carried  the  glory  of  Greece  higher 
than  that  of  Chaldea  or  Persia,  but  he  was  cut  off  in  the 
midst  of  his  days,  and  (Alexandria  excepted,  which  he  began 
but  which  was  perfected  by  the  Ptolemies,)  before  he  had 
done  anything  except  to  wrest  their  possessions  from  others, 
See  further  on  chaps,  vii.  and  viii.  It  would  seem  rather  arbi- 
trary to  find  a  perfect  likeness  between  every  part  of  the  im- 
age and  the  corresponding  kingdoms  denoted.  Only  a  gene- 
ral outline  and  correspondence  may  be  intended,  and  if  so,  it 
would  be  as  unwise  to  seek  for  an  exact  likeness  as  to  hunt 
any  metaphor  on  all  fours  and  pursue  it  until  completely  run 
down.  Nevertheless  a  likeness  may  be  traced  out,  if  one 
chooses.  The  two  arms  may  denote  the  union  of  the  Medes 
and  the  Persians  as  the  two  arms  are  united  in  the  chest.* 
The  belly  and  thighs  may  signify  Alexander  or  Macedon  lean- 
ing on  the  two  great  divisions  of  Greece  which  had  been  op- 
posed to  each  other,  but  became  united  in  the  invasion  of 
Asia,  viz.  Thebes  and  Athens,  the  ruling  cities  of  Greece. 

*  Josephus  finds  the  two  arms  and  hands  in  the  two  kings,  (Darius 
and  Cyrus,)  who  subdued  Babylon,  Antiq.  B.x.  c.  10.  sec.  4. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  40 43.  149 

40  And  the  fourth  kingdom  shall  be  strong  as  iron :  forasmuch 
as  iron  breaketh  in  pieces  and   subdueth  all  things  ;  and  as  iron 

41  tl^at  breaketh  all  these,  shall  it  bretik  in  pieces  and  bruise.  And 
whereas  thou  sawest  the  feet  and  toes,  part  of  potters'  clay,  and 

•  part  of  iron,  the  kingdom  shall  be  divided ;  but  there  shall  be  in 
it  of  the  strength  of  the  iron,  forasmuch  as  thou  sawest  the  iron 

42  mixed  with  miry  clay.  And  as  the  toes  of  the  feet  were  part  of 
iron,  and  part  of  clay,  so  the  kingdom  shall  be  partly  strong,  and 

43  partly  broken.  And  whereas  thou  sawest  iron  mixed  with  miry 
clay,  they  shall  mingle  themselves  with  the  seed  of  men  :  but  they 
shall  not  cleave  one  to  another,  even  as  iron  is  not  mixed  with 
clay. 

To  what  dominion  does  the  prophet  here  refer  ?  What 
monarchy  is  symbolized  by  the  legs  of  iron  and  feet  part  of 
clay  and  part  of  iron  ? 

With  the  explanations  already  given  of  chaps,  xi,  viii.  and 
vii,  and  the  considerations  there  presented,  and  with  the 
universal  admission  that  this  prophecy  in  chap.  ii.  is  but  the 
germ  of  which  all  the  others  are  the  fuller  development, 
(Bishop  Newton  calls  it  "  the  groundwork  of  all  the  rest," 
Proph.  p.  103,)  we  must  seek  for  this  fourth  kingdom  of  iron 
in  that  which  immediately  succeeded  the  Grecian  under  Al- 
exander, and  the  imagery  itself  most  naturally  designates  that. 
The  statue  symbolizes  four  monarchies,  the  three  first  of 
which  we  have  seen  to  grow  into  each  other  as  members  of 
one  body,  viz.  the  Persian  into  the  Chaldean,  and  the  Gre- 
cian into  the  Persian.  We  have  seen  also  that  the  kingdom 
of  Alexander's  generals  grew  into  the  Grecian  as  that  did 
into  the  Persian,  but  that  the  Roman  never  grew  into  the 
kingdom  of  Alexander  and  his  successors  beyond  the  Eu- 
phrates ;  and  therefore  on  any  supposition  that  the  kingdoms 
of  Alexander  and  his  successors  are  here  set  forth  as  one  and 
the  same,  there  is  a  failure  in  the  emblematic  connexion,  be- 
cause the  Roman  did  not  grow  into  the  kingdom  of  Alexan- 
der and  his  successors  considered  as  one,  as  that  grew  into 
the  Persian. 

13* 


150  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  40 43. 

The  two  legs  of  iron,  and  the  two  feet  and  ten  toes  of  iron 
mixed  with  clay,  fitly  represent  the  two  kingdoms  of  the  La- 
gidae  and  Seleucidae — Egypt  and  Syria — into  which  the  em- 
pire of  the  eastern  world  was  constituted  not  many  years  af- 
ter Alexander's  death.  They  were  cotemporaneous.  They 
were  the  only  ones  that  had  much  connexion  with  the  Jewish 
nation  ;  and,  as  Bishop  Newton  remarks,  "it  is  the  purpose 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  interweave  so  much  of  foreign  af- 
fairs as  hath  some  relation  to  the  Jews."  They  were  of  iron 
strength  under  Seleucus  I.  and  Ptolemy  I,  their  founders,  but 
grew  weak  and  fragile  afterward,  and  yet  possessed  iron 
strength  in  close  connexion  with  periods  of  weakness,  as 
shown  in  different  parts  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  the  Great, 
11:  11,  15,  19  ;  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  as  con- 
trasted with  that  of  Seleucus  Philopator,  11:  20,  23;  in  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  Philopater  as  contrasted  with  Ptolemy  Epi- 
phanes, 11:  11,  15;  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes  I,  as 
contrasted  with  Antiochus  II,  11:  7,  8 — and  it  needs  not  more 
words  to  show  that  those  speak  contrary  to  facts  who  say 
that  these  kingdoms  so  far  from  being  stronger  were  much 
weaker  than  any  of  the  former  kingdoms.  The  destructive 
effects  of  their  iron  rule  in  subduing  and  dashing  the  nations 
to  pieces,  especially  Palestine,  have  been  already  shown  in 
the  other  chapters.  The  blended  iron  and  clay  are  seen  in 
the  weak  and  broken  condition  both  of  the  nations  and  kings 
from  mutual  wars  and  internal  party  commotions.  They 
were  united  often  by  treaty  and  by  intermarriage — Antiochus 
Theus  married  Berenice  daughter  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus, 
11:  6;  Antiochus  the  Great  gave  his  daughter  Cleopatra  to 
Ptolemy  Epiphanes,  11:  15  ;  Magas,  half  brother  to  P.  Phila- 
delphus married  Apame  daughter  of  Antiochus  Soter ;  but 
still  they  did  not  cleave  to  one  another  in  faithful  alliance, 
even  as  iron  is  not  mixed  with  clay.* 

*  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  who  does  not  find  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and 
Egypt  in  chap,  vii,  yet  sees  such  a  correspondence  between  them  and 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  40 43.  151 

It  has  been  urged  by  some,  that  as  in  v.  41  the  feet  and 
toes  part  of  iron  and  part  of  clay  denote  that  the  "  kingdom 
shall  be  divided,"  it  implies  that  the  kingdom  was  at  first  a 
whole,  and  only  at  a  later  period  was  divided — i.  e.  that  the 
entirely  iron  legs  must  symbolize  an  undivided  kingdom,  and 
therefore  could  not  designate  the  two  dynasties  of  the  Lagi- 
dae  and  Seleucidae.*  But  surely  the  part  iron  and  part  clay 
do  not  denote  such  a  division  as  this  objection  contemplates — 
a  division  into  kingdoms  of  which  some  are  symbolized  by 
the  clay,  and  others  by  the  iron.  It  is  that  the  two  respec- 
tive dynasties  shall  be  divided  among  themselves  ;  and  so  were 
the  Lagidae  and  Seleucidae.  There  was  the  division  in  the 
Syrian  kingdom  after  the  death  of  Seleucus  Philopater,  see 
on  11:  21.  There  was  the  division  particularly  in  Egypt  in 
respect  to  the  two  Ptolemies,  with  yet  other  dissensions  and 
conspiracies,  see  on  11:  14,  26,  27;  and  that  the  word  trans- 
lated to  divide  may  denote  no  more  than  such  divisions  as 
these,  see  Ps.  55:  9,  where  the  same  word  is  found  in  the 
phrase  ''Destroy,  O  Lord,  and  divide  their  tongues." 

It  is  objected  also  by  Bishop  Newton,  p.  190,  that  "  this 
kingdom  was  divided  into  ten  toes  :  but  when  or  where  were 
the  kingdoms  of  the  Lagidae  and  of  the  Seleucidae  divided 
into  so  many  parts  V  It  ought  to  be  enough  to  reply  that 
the  prophet  does  not  expressly  make  the  ten  toes  emblemati- 
cal of  so  many  parts  of  a  kingdom.  He  does  not  here  use 
the  number  ten  at  all,  and  the  toes  are  not  mentioned  in  the 

the  description  in  these  verses,  that  he  remarks  thus  on  them — "Legs 
of  iron,  and  feet  and  toes  of  iron  and  clay — I  think  this  means  in  the 
first  place  the  kingdom  of  the  Lagidae,  in  Egypt ;  and  the  kingdom 
of  the  Seleucidae,  in  Syria.  And,  secondly,  the  Roman  empire  which 
was  properly  composed  of  them."  His  judgment  maybe  an  off-set  to 
those  who  find  no  such  correspondence,  but  the  Romans  certainly  can- 
not form  one  kingdom  with  the  Syrians  and  Egyptians,  and  both  to- 
gether be  the  fourth. 

*  An  objection  of  Hengstenberg  as  given  in  the  Christian  Review, 
p.  17. 


152  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  40 43. 

dream  itself.  To  attempt  to  find  something  to  answer  to  the 
toes,  is  no  better  than  to  attempt  to  find  in  the  Persian  em- 
pire something  to  answer  to  the^ngers.  Manifestly,  the  feet 
and  toes  have  the  same  relation  to  the  legs,  that  the  hands 
and  fingers  do  to  the  arms ;  they  belong  to  the  same  domin- 
ion, and  the  sole  reason  why  the  feet  and  toes  are  mentioned 
seem  to  be  that  they  show  the  relative  strength  of  one  and  the 
same  dominion  with  the  legs  at  different  periods  of  time — 
the  iron  at  the  beginning,  and  the  feet  and  toes  at  the  end. 
The  correspondence  between  the  number  ten  toes  and  ten 
horns  is  but  accidental.  Moreover,  the  dream  is  that  the 
image  is  smitten  on  the  feet,  it  does  not  say  on  the  toes. 
Now  if,  as  those  who  apply  this  to  Rome  say,  the  toes  are 
separate  from  the  feet,  and  denote  the  ten  kingdoms  into 
which  the  Roman  empire  was  subsequently  divided,  and  the 
feet  now  exist  not,  but  only  the  toes,  then  there  is  a  confusion 
in  the  emblem ;  for  the  stone  smites  the  feet,  not  the  toes, 
but  according  to  those  who  apply  it  to  Rome,  it  ought  to 
smite  the  toes.  Nevertheless,  if  a  correspondence  is  insisted 
on,  what  should  the  toes  denote  except  not  the  kingdoms  but 
the  kings  1 

The  antients  supposed  on  this,  as  on  the  vision  of  the 
beasts,  that  the  fourth  kingdom  was  the  Roman.  And  Jose- 
phus  also  seems  to  have  the  same  opinion.  For  he  thus 
speaks  after  having  given  the  signification  of  the  two  arms  of 
the  statue — "  But  another  king  that  shall  come  from  the  west, 
armed  with  brass,  [by  which  he  seems  to  think  the  brass  has 
some  allusion  to  the  brazen  armor  known  to  have  been  worn 
by  the  Greeks,]  shall  destroy  that  government  [viz.  the  Per- 
sian] ;  and  another  government,  that  shall  be  like  unto  iron, 
shall  put  an  end  to  the  power  of  the  former,  and  shall  have 
dominion  over  all  the  earth,  on  account  of  the  nature  of  iron, 
which  is  stronger  than  that  of  gold,  of  silver  and  of  brass. 
Daniel  did  also  declare  the  meaning  of  the  stone  to  the  king  ; 
but  I  do  not  think  proper  to  relate  it,  since  I  have  only  un- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  40—43.  153 

dertaken  to  describe  things  past  or  things  present,  but  not 
thintrs  that  are  future."  Josephus  here  seems  to  entertain 
the  opinion  and  hope  of  many  of  his  countrymen  that  the 
fourth  kingdom  was  the  Roman,  and  that  it  would  be  destroy- 
ed by  the  Messiah  ;*  but  he  does  not  express  it  for  reasons 
of  worldly  policy,  and  for  the  same  reason  he  seems  to  have 
been  silent  on  the  vision  of  the  four  beasts.  That  the  rea- 
sons, however,  which  induced  him  with  others  to  entertain 
such  an  opinion,  lay  in  the  circumstances  of  his  times,  and 
therefore  ought  not  to  have  any  more  than  the  weight  of  a 
mere  opiniurij  has  already  been  remarked  on  chap.  vii.  And 
it  can  have  no  more  weight  than  that,  especially  when  we 
consider  that  Josephus  applied  to  the  Roman  emperor  Ves- 
pasian the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  on  which  his 
countrymen  had  relied  for  their  faith  in  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  to  receive  dominion  over  the  world,  (Wars  of  the 
Jews,  B.  vi.  c.  5.  sec.  4.) 

To  some  it  also  appears  a  difficulty  that  an  empire  so 
great  as  Rome,  and  so  intimately  connected  with  the  history 
of  the  Jews  and  the  instrument  of  the  final  overthrow  of  the 
city  and  temple,  should  not  be  included  in  this  series  of  king- 
doms. But  it  is  a  sufficient  consideration  that  it  did  not  en- 
ter into  the  object  of  these  prophecies  of  Daniel  to  make  the 
Roman  kingdom  one  of  the  series.  We  are  to  rest  satisfied 
with  the  facts  in  the  case.  Besides,  the  kingdom  of  Nineveh 
was  not  mentioned,  which  was  before  the  Chaldean,  nor  is 
the  kingdom  of  the  Turks  given  who  have  already  trodden 
the  holy  city  and  sanctuary  under  foot  as  long  and  as  cruelly 

*  Having  spoken  of  two  kings,  viz.  Cyrus  and  Darius,  he  says  ano- 
ther shall  come  and  destroy  that  government.  So  another  still  shall 
come  and  destroy  the  government  of  Alexander — of  course  he  means 
the  government  of  Alexander's  successors,  as  he  also  meant  the  gov- 
ernment of  Cyrus'  successors ;  and  it  is  certain  that  he  often  speaks 
of  the  Syrian  government  as  that  of  the  Macedonians,  as  in  Book  xii. 
c.  7.  Sec.  6. 


154  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45. 

as  the  Romans  ever  did.  Says  Bishop  Newton  speaking  of 
those  four  kingdoms — "  Not  but  that  there  have  been  em- 
pires as  great  or  greater  than  some  of  these,  as  those  of  the 
Tartars  for  instance,  and  of  the  Saracens,  and  of  the  Turks." 
Why  ask  for  the  admission  of  Rome  into  this  image,  more 
than  the  dominion  of  the  Moslem. 

The  particular  design  of  closing  the  series  of  the  king- 
doms with  the  kingdom  of  Alexander's  successors  is  however 
not  difficult  to  be  perceived,  and  it  will  be  brought  out  clear- 
ly in  the  interpretation  of  the  remaining  verses.  For  the 
prophet  was  appointed  to  give  a  clew  to  the  time  of  the  first 
advent  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  upon  earth,  who  was  to  ap- 
pear at  the  close  of  a  series  of  kingdoms  the  last  of  which  had 
been  a  great  oppressor  of  the  people  of  God.  The  visions  were 
thus  a  guide  to  Christ,  so  that  none  need  mistake. 

44  And  in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a 
kingdom,  which  shall  never  be  destroyed  ;  and  the  kingdom  shall 
not  be  left  to  other  people,  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  consume 

45  all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  forever.  [:]  Forasmuch  as 
[because]  thou  sawest  that  the  stone  was  cut  out  of  the  mountain 
without  hands,  and  that  it  brake  in  pieces  the  iron,  the  brass,  the 
clay,  the  silver,  and  the  gold ;  [.]  the  [The]  great  God  hath  made 
known  to  the  king  what  shall  come  to  pass  hereafter :  and  the 
dream  is  certain,  and  the  interpretation  thereof  sure. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  kingdom  is  the  same  with 
that  which,  in  chap,  vii,  is  given  to  the  Son  of  man  and  to 
the  holy  people  of  the  Most  High,  and  in  the  light  of  that 
chapter  we  see  clearly  it  cannot  be  the  empire  of  Rome,  but 
the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ.  Does  the 
phrase,  then,  "  in  the  days  of  these  kings,"  point  out  with 
sufficient  definiteness  the  rise  of  this  new  kingdom  ?  First, 
what  does  the  phrase  mean  ?  Does  it  mean,  in  the  midst 
of  their  reign  ?  while  those  kings  were  on  the  throne  ?  The 
preposition  in  the  phrase  is  often  used  to  denote  time  finished 
— so  Gesenius  the  Hebrew  lexicographer   gives  it,  and  so 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45.  155 

usage  demands.  For  instance,  the  same  preposition  with 
the  same  construction  is  found  in  Num.  28:  26,  where  it  is 
properly  translated  in  our  English  Bible  as  follows — "  after 
your  weeks  be  out.^^  Also  in  Ecclesiastes  11:  1,  "Cast  thy 
bread  upon  the  waters :  for  thou  shalt  find  it  after  many 
days."  Also  Dan.  11:20,"  Within  few  clays  [when  a  few- 
days  shall  have  expired]  he  shall  be  destroyed."  In  the  last 
two  of  these  instances,  however,  the  meaning  may  be  that  the 
thing  spoken  of  shall  take  place  within  certain  limits — loithiji 
certain  days ;  but  in  the  first  the  usage  is  clear  and  beyond 
question. 

Now  to  apply  this  to  the  phrase  in  Daniel  2:  44 — "  In  the 
days  of  these  kings."  After  their  successive  reigns  were  out, 
after  they  had  fully  expired,  there  arose  next  in  succession 
the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  man.  The  king- 
doms of  Babylon,  of  Persia,  of  Macedon,  had  passed  away ; 
the  kingdoms  of  the  Seleucidae  and  the  Lagidae — Syria  and 
Egypt — had  come  to  an  end,  the  last  of  them  only  thirty-five 
years  B.  C.  Next  in  order  of  succession,  and  with  but  little 
longer  lapse  of  time  than  existed  between  the  fall  of  Alexan- 
der, and  the  partition  of  his  empire  between  Ptolemy,  Seleu- 
cus,  Cassander  and  Lysimachus,  there  was  established  the 
spiritual  reign  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  prophet  looking  down 
a  remote  tract  of  time,  and  beholding  a  succession  of  four 
kingdoms,  and  of  still  another  and  a  greater  and  more  glori- 
ous to  arise  next  after  the  fourth,  properly  uses  the  phrase, 
"  After  the  days  of  these  kings."  Even  with  the  shade  of 
meaning,  Within  the  days  of  these  kings,  the  prophet's  lan- 
guage has  its  accomplishment  in  the  facts  above  stated. 
Within  the  days  of  what  kings  ?  If  we  must  be  guided  by 
the  language  employed  in  describing  the  statue  and  its  over- 
throw, where  the  stone  breaks  in  pieces  not  only  the  iron  and 
clay  but  also  the  brass  and  the  silver  and  the  gold,  then  are 
we  to  conceive  of  the  brass  and  silver  and  gold  as  still  exist-^ 
ing,  in  some  sort,  when  the  stone  smites  the  image  on  the 


156  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45. 

feet — in  other  words  the  kings,  or  kingdoms,  exist  which 
correspond  to  the  brass,  silver  and  gold.  Now  when  the 
fourth  kingdom  was  destroyed,  the  lives  of  the  others  were 
prolonged,  though  their  dominion  was  taken  away.  When 
Syria  and  Egypt  were  destroyed,  the  nations  beyond  the  Eu- 
phrates were  spared.  Hence  the  fourth  kingdom  could  be  ap- 
propriately  described  as  set  up  within  the  days  of  those  kings, 
or  kingdoms,  i.  e.  before  they  were  all  utterly  destroyed  ;  and 
the  era  of  the  rise  of  the  fifth  kingdom  would  be  determined 
by  the  destruction  of  the  fourth. 

This  fifth  kingdom  set  up  by  the  God  of  heaven  is  desig- 
nated by  a  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain  without  hands. 
The  position  of  the  colossal  statue  is  to  be  conceived  as  in  a 
valley  near  the  foot  of  a  precipice,  from  whose  summit  a 
piece  suddenly  breaks  off  by  no  human  instrumentality,  and 
falls  and  smites  the  statue  on  the  feet,  crushing  them  by  its 
weight,  causing  the  whole  statue  to  fall,  and  then  rolling  over 
it  and  grinding  it  to  the  finest  dust  which  the  wind  blows 
entirely  away ;  and  afterwards  the  stone  which  smites  the 
image  becomes  a  great  mountain  and  fills  the  whole  earth. 

Now  as  matter  of  fact  we  know  that  it  was  the  Roman 
armies  which  destroyed  the  fourth  kingdom  ;  how  is  this  to 
be  reconciled  with  the  prediction  that  the  fifth  kingdom 
should  do  it,  and  that  fifth  kingdom  be  the  kingdom  of  Christ  ? 
There  is  all  the  explanation  that  we  need  in  language  used 
by  our  Savior  in  a  parable  recorded  in  Matt.  22:  2 — 7,  "  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  certain  king,  which  made  a 
marriage  for  his  son,  and  sent  forth  his  servants  to  call  them 
that  were  bidden  to  the  wedding ;  and  they  would  not  come. 
Again,  he  sent  forth  other  servants,  saying,  Tell  them  which 

are  bidden,  ....  all  things  are  ready But  they  made 

light  of  it,  and  went  their  ways,  one  to  his  farm,  another  to 
his  merchandize.  And  the  remnant  took  his  servants,  and 
entreated  them  spitefully,  and  slew  them.  But  when  the  king 
heard  thereof,  he  was  wroth :  and  he  sent  forth  his  armies, 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45.  157 

and  destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burned  up  their  city." 
Now  though  this  was  applied  to  the  Jews,  the  principle  ap- 
plies to  the  destruction  of  the  fourth  kingdom  by  the  Roman 
armies — the  same  armies  of  the  king  which  afterwards  were 
commissioned  to  destroy  Jerusalem.  And  though  as  matter 
of  fact  Christ's  kingdom  was  not  fully  established  until  the 
Romans  had  already  done  the  work  of  destroying  the  fourth 
kingdom,  yet  in  proximity  of  time  to  that  work,  and  in  the 
preparation  for  the  fifth  kingdom  then  shortly  to  appear,  the 
facts  might  truly  be  shadowed  forth  under  such  imagery  as 
Daniel  employs.  For  it  was  the  God  of  heaven  who  com- 
missioned those  armies  to  do  the  work  of  destroying  that  per- 
secuting kingdom,  and  the  same  God  of  heaven  was  even  then 
about  laying  the  foundations  of  the  new  spiritual  kingdom 
which  was  never  to  be  destroyed — never  to  be  left  to  other 
people,  never  overthrown  by  other  people  as  the  Babylonian 
was  by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  and  the  Medo-Persian  by 
the  Greeks  under  Alexander,  and  the  kingdom  of  Alexander 
by  his  usurping  successors  and  the  murderers  of  his  offspring. 
Under  such  imagery  derived  from  temporal  kingdoms  was 
shadowed  forth  the  spiritual  kingdom  in  which  the  saints^ 
should  reign  with  the  Son  of  man. 

By  the  imagery  of  the  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain  with- 
out hands  and  smiting  the  statue,  is  also  symbolically  taught 
that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  arising  by  no  human  might  and 
power  but  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  should  enter 
the  very  seats  of  those  four  great  nations,  and  destroy  the  do- 
minion of  Satan  where  it  had  so  long  existed.  As  matter  of 
fact,  Christianity  made  its  beginning  in  the  kingdom  of  the 
Seleucidae,  "  the  disciples  were  called  Christians  ^rst  in  An- 
tioch,"  Acts  11:  26.  It  smote  the  colossal  kingdom  op 
EVIL  on  the  feet.  And  it  extended  into  Egypt,  and  into 
the  remotest  nations  of  the  East  farther  than  the  sceptre  of 
Alexander  ever  reached.  Said  even  one  in  the  primitive 
age,  "  The  gospel  was  preached  to  every  creature  which  is 
14 


158  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45, 

under  heaven" — and  again,  "  Verily  their  sound  went  into  all 
the  earth,  and  their  words  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  Coloss. 
1:  23.  Rom.  10:  18.  That  new  power  so  efficacious,  was 
Christianity.  That  new  kingdom  was  the  Christian  Church 
of  which  Jesus  Christ  was  made  the  head  when  "  the  God  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory  raised  him  from 
the  dead,  and  set  him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly 
places,  far  above  all  principality,  and  power,  and  might,  and 
dominion,  and  every  name  that  is  named,  not  only  in  this 
world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come,  and  hath  put  all 
things  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  the  head  over  all 
things  to  the  Church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him 
that  filleth  all  in  all,"  Eph.  1:  17—23.  This  kingdom  did  not 
come  as  the  Jews,  from  too  literal  an  interpretation  of  the 
prophecies,  supposed  it  would  come,  in  the  form  of  the  earthly 
throne  of  David  given  to  the  son  of  David.  It  did  not  come 
even  as  the  disciples  supposed  after  the  resurrection  of  their 
Lord,  when  they  asked  the  question.  Acts  1:6,  "Lord,  wilt 
thou  at  this  time  restore  again  the  kingdom  to  Israel?"  The 
kingdom  was  not  restored  to  Israel  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
Israelites  hoped — when,  being  erected  in  the  holy  land,  it 
should  immediately  destroy  all  other  nations,  and  grow  into  a 
universal  earthly  monarchy  of  surpassing  glory.  Said  our 
Savior  himself"  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world;  if  it  were, 
then  would  my  servants  fight  for  it,"  John  18:  36.  And  said 
he  again,  "  The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observa- 
tion; behold,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you,"  Luke  17: 
20.  It  came  not  with  worldly  pomp  and  splendor,  but  was 
to  be  set  up  in  the  hearts  of  men.  By  its  power  and  efficacy 
it  would  in  the  end  overthrow  all  idolatry,  and  all  institutions 
hurtful  and  oppressive  to  the  world. 

"There  is  one  aspect  in  which  the  prediction  must  be  re- 
garded as  still  more  literal.  Christ  said  of  himself  as  the  cor- 
ner stone,  "  Whosoever  shall  fall  on  this  stone,  shall  be  bro- 
ken :  but  on  whomsoever  it  shall  fall  it  will  grind  him  to  pow- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45.  159 

der,"  Matt.  21:  44.  EviJ  would  struggle  hard  to  maintain  its 
ascendancy  in  the  world,  wicked  men  and  wicked  nations 
would  oppose  the  progress  of  his  religion,  but  they  should  be 
miserably  destroyed. 

How  far  does  the  history  of  the  world  since  Christ  came 
verify  the  predictions  respecting  the  power  and  progress  of 
his  kingdom  ?  He  who  looks  down  through  the  ages  to  the 
Christian  era,  will  see  that  the  fulfilment  has  been  most  re- 
markable. In  less  than  four  hundred  years  the  public  rites 
of  heathenism  were  all  abolished  throughout  the  wide  Roman 
world.*  Despotic  institutions  have  in  many  countries  been 
overthrown,  and  in  their  place  others  have  been  substituted 
sacredly  regarding  the  life  and  liberty  and  happiness  of  the 
people.  Cities  and  nations  opposed  to  Christ's  kingdom  and 
persecuting  the  saints,  have  been  broken  to  pieces  and  scat- 
tered ;  and  among  them  are  numbered  Antioch  and  Alexan- 
dria, the  seals  of  power  in  the  ancient  dynasties  of  Alexan- 
der's successors — Antioch,  once  greater  and  richer  than 
Rome  itself,  and  the  dueen  of  the  East,  which  now  exhibits 
hardly  any  relics  of  her  former  splendor,  and  whose  very 
ruins  are  constantly  thrown  down  by  earthquakes — Alexan- 
dria, the  ancient  seat  of  commerce  and  learning  and  the  arts, 
the  abode  of  luxury  and  taste,  of  which  nothing  remains  ex- 
cept a  portico  in  the  vicinity  of  the  gate  leading  to  Rosetta, 
the  southwestern  amphitheatre,  Cleopatra's  obelisk  or  needle, 
and  Pompey's  pillar  ;  its  population  once  300,000  now  but 
12,600.t  There  is  Jerusalem  too,  and  Chorazin,  and  Beth- 
saida,  and  Capernaum.  There  is  the  Roman  empire  which  in 
its  turn  persecuted  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  and  has  been 
destroyed.  The  words  of  a  prophet  have  been  literally  fulfil- 
led— "  I  will  overturn,  overturn,  overturn  it ;  and  it  shall  be 
no  more  until  he  come  whose  right  it  is ;  and  I  will  give  it 
to  him,"  Ezek.  21:  27.     But  the  higher  and  more  character- 

*  See  Gibbon's  testimony,  Interpr.  p.  44. 

t  Encyc.  Americana,  Art8.  Antioch  and  Alexandria. 


160  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45. 

istic  reign  of  the  Son  of  Man  has  been  the  holiness  to  which 
it  has  given  birth  in  the  hearts  of  multitudes  ;  in  the  redemp- 
tion of  men  from  the  bondage  of  sin  to  the  liberty  of  sons  of 
God,  and  in  their  consequent  meetness  to  be  partakers  of  the 
inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light.  Over  all  opposition  Chris- 
tianity has  triumphed,  her  dominion  down  to  this  very  day 
has  been  growing  wider  and  wider,  gathering  strength  in  her 
onward  course,  and  in  her  past  triumphs  giving  pledge  that 

"  Jesus  shall  reign  where'er  the  sixn 
Does  his  successive  journeys  run; 
His  kingdom  stretch  from  shore  to  shore 
Till  moons  shall  wax  and  wane  no  more." 

In  concluding  this  chapter  it  may  be  asked,  can  that  inter- 
pretation be  the  true  one  which  asserts  that  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  has  not  yet  been  set  up  in  the  world  1  And  yet  this 
is  the  universal  interpretation  of  those  who  teach  the  second 
advent  of  Christ  in  A.  D.  1843 ;  and  not  of  theirs  only,  but 
it  is  the  necessary  deduction  made  by  such  men  as  Bishop 
Newton,  who  applying  the  fourth  kingdom  to  political  and 
ecclesiastical  Rome  look  for  the  accomplishment  of  what  is 
here  said  of  the  fifth  kingdom  not  until  ecclesiastical  Rome 
or  the  Papacy  is  destroyed.  The  reasons  they  assign  are,  (1) 
"  that  the  destruction  of  all  the  former  kingdoms  [the  Roman 
included  as  the  fourth]  was  to  precede  its  establishment;  (2) 
that  the  kingdom  is  to  fill  the  whole  earth,  which  it  now  does 
not."  But  it  is  clear  that  the  fourth  kingdom  was  the  king- 
dom which  succeeded  Alexander's,  and  the  facts  in  regard  to 
Christianity  also  oblige  us  to  fix  on  that  kingdom  as  the  fourth. 
Surely  the  prophecy  itself,  so  far  from  asserting  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  shall,  when  established,  at  once  fill  the 
whole  earth,  teaches  the  contrary,  and  what  we  have  seen 
under  chap.  viii.  to  be  corroborated  by  the  teachings  of  Christ, 
viz.  that  its  progress  was  to  be  like  a  stone  growing  into  a  moun- 
tain.    It  is  growing  still,  it  is  lifting  up  its  head  higher  and 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45.  161 

more  serenely  to  heaven,  and  stretching  out  its  ample  sides 
toward  the  ends  of  the  earth.     What !  is  not  that  kingdom 
of  heaven  established,  not  though  the  wise  men  from  the  east 
where  Daniel  delivered  this  very  prophecy  among  them,  came 
to  Jerusalem  at  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  asked,  Where  is  he 
that  is  born  king  of  the  Jews,  and  finding  him  at  Bethlehem 
fell  down  and  paid  him  homage  1     Not  though  the  same  an- 
gel Gabriel  who  revealed  the  visions  to  Daniel,  came  also  to 
Mary  and  having  promised  that  she  should  have  a  son  whose 
name  should  be  called  Jesus,  added,  '*  He  shall  be  great,  and 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  highest ;  and  the  Lord  God 
shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David,  and  he 
shall  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  forever,  and  of  his  king- 
dom there  shall   be  no  end  ?"*     Not  though  Zecharias  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  spake — "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of 
Israel ;  for  he  hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  people,  and  hath 
raised  up  an  horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of  his  servant 
David,  as  he  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets,  which 
have  been  since  the  world  began  ?"!     Not  though  our  Lord 
himself  said,  "From  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent 
take  it  by  force  ?"|     Has  not  Christ  yet  established  his  king- 
dom, not  though  he  himself  said,    "I  saw  Satan  fall  like 
lightning  from  heaven  ?"§     Not  though  he  was  ''  declared 
the  Son  of  God  with  power  by  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead  V^\\      Not  though  apostles  in  the  primitive  age  gave 
thanks  in  the  name  of  believers  that  the  Father  had  delivered 
them  from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  translated  them  into 
the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son  ?^     A  theory  which  asserts  that 
this  kingdom  of  heaven  is  not  yet  established,  that  it  is  not 
yet  in  the  earth,  does  violence  to  the  whole  scope  of  prophe- 
cy and  gospel.     Wherever  there  is  one  heart  filled  with  right- 

*  Luke  1:  32,  33.        t  lb.  vs.  68—70.       t  Matt.  H:  12.        §  Luke 
10:  18.         II  Rom.  1:  4.         IT  Col.  1:  13. 

14* 


162  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  2:  44,  45. 

eousness,  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  there  is  the  king- 
dom of  God.  So  long  as  there  shall  be  one  on  earth  obedi- 
ent to  the  laws  of  Christ,  the  kingdom  is  not  left  to  others. 
Bu-t  amidst  whatever  decline  of  Christianity  in  the  earth, 
amidst  whatever  corruptions  in  the  Church,  the  true  king- 
dom of  God  has  had  its  throne  in  many  hearts,  it  has  been 
within  many  pure  souls,  and  a  band  could  at  any  time  have 
been  found,  larger  than  that  small  remnant  who  in  the  cor- 
ruptest  period  of  the  antient  church  numbered  seven  thousand, 
or  that  smaller  remnant  under  the  heroic  and  faithful  sons  of 
Mattathias.  How  much  more  than  that  number  now  exist, 
and  with  all  the  abatements  that  may  be  made  for  the  **  many 
who  cleave  to  the  host  with  flatteries,"  what  multitudes  are 
enrolled  as  the  true  saints  of  the  Most  High  !  Surely  this 
kingdom  is  in  the  world  !  It  has  not  yet  the  strength  it  is 
destined  to  have,  it  has  not  yet  made  all  its  conquests,  but  in 
the  very  spirit  of  this  prophecy  "  a  crown  has  been  given  to 
one  who  has  gone  forth  conquering  and  to  conquer,"  Rev.  6: 
2.     Its  final  issues  are  with  God. 

The  rise  of  this  kingdom  after  four  great  kingdoms  and  at 
a  period  concerning  which  there  could  be  no  mistake,  its  es- 
tablishment, its  perpetuity,  its  destined  progress,  its  universal 
triumph,  the  prophet  has  here  predicted.  But  the  term  of 
that  progress,  the  time  which  should  elapse  before  it  should 
become  a  universal  kingdom,  its  duration  in  this  world,  the 
prophet  does  not  give,  and  the  angel  was  not  sent  to  explain. 
It  was  predicted  that  the  kingdom  should  stand  forever,  even 
forever  and  ever,  (Dan.  7:  18).  The  kingdom  of  God  con- 
templated as  a  kingdom  of  righteousness,  peace  and  joy,  shall 
endure  literally  forever  and  ever.  No  changes  in  time  or 
space  can  affect  it,  not  the  final  dissolution  of  the  present 
globe,  not  the  coming  of  the  end  when  Christ  shall  have  de- 
livered up  the  kingdom  to  God  even  the  Father,  1  Cor.  15: 
24.  For  the  saints  shall  still  reign  more  gloriously  under 
God  as  all  in  all,  (1  Cor.  15:  28,)  and  the  splendor  of  heaven 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  ^:  44,  45.  163 

shall  be  only  the  farther  and  brighter  shining  of  those  rays  of 
light  that  first  scattered  the  darkness  of  this  sinful  world. 
The  kingdom  established  by  the  God  of  heaven  seems,  how- 
ever, to  be  rather  the  mediatorial  kingdom  of  Christ,  which 
had  its  commencement  with  the  ascension  of  Christ,  which 
has  been  progressing  since,  and  which  is  to  be  one  day  con- 
summated with  the  destruction  of  the  last  enemy  death,  and 
with  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  with  the  personal  ap- 
pearing of  Christ  in  like  manner  as  the  disciples  saw  him  go 
into  heaven,  (Acts  1:  11,)  and  with  the  retributions  of  eter- 
nity. That  mediatorial  kingdom  is  to  last  forever  and  ever, 
in  the  sense  that  it  is  not  to  be  subject  to  entire  revolutions 
and  overtures  and  ruin  like  the  kingdoms  of  the  world.  But 
when  all  the  purposes  for  which  God  established  it  shall  have 
their  accomplishment,  "  then  cometh  the  end,"  1  Cor.  15:  24. 
The  phraseology  by  which  its  perpetuity  is  denoted  is  the 
same  with  that  in  Ps.  148:  5,  where  the  Psalmist  having  spo- 
ken of  the  heavens  and  the  waters  above  the  heavens  which 
the  Lord  created,  adds,  "  He  hath  also  established  them  for- 
ever and  ever,"  Comp.  also  Is.  30:  8,  and  Jer.  7:  7.  Now 
an  apostle  says  that  "these  same  heavens,  and  the  earth 
which  are  now,"  and  which  the  Psalmist  declares  are  estab- 
lished forever  and  ever,  "  by  the  same  word  are  reserved  unto 
fire  against  the  day  of  judgment  and  perdition  of  ungodly 
men,"  2  Peter  3:  7.  The  personal  appearing  of  Christ  "  who 
shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appearing  and  king- 
dom," (2  Tim.  4:  1,)  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto 
him,  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  establishment  and  pro- 
gress of  his  kingdom,  it  is  its  consummation.  For  this  con- 
summation primitive  Christians  1800  years  ago  waited  and 
believed  it  would  come.  For  it  Christians  in  every  age  should 
wait,  and  "  show  the  Lord's  death  until  he  come,"  (1  Cor.  11: 
26,)  for  "unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he  appear  the  se- 
cond time  without  sin  [without  becoming  again  a  sacrifice 
for  sin]  unto  salvation,"  Heb.  9:  28.     But  the  presumption  of 


164  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  24 27. 

him  who  fixes  on  the  time  of  that  appearing,  is  not  less  than 
the  indifference  of  him  who  saith  in  his  heart,  My  Lord  delay- 
eth  his  coming. 


SECTION  V. 

JNTERPRETATION  OF  CHAP.  IX:  24—27. 

THE  VISION  OF  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS. 

This  is  an  exceedhigly  difficuh  passage  of  Scripture,  and  he 
who  does  not  feel  it  to  be  so,  has  never  studied  it  thoroughly. 
It  needs,  for  understanding  it,  whatever  discipline  may  have 
been  gained  by  a  study  of  the  other  visions.  The  results  ar- 
rived at  in  the  following  interpretation,  are,  that  this  vision  is 
properly  a  supplement  to  the  vision  in  chapter  viii; 
that  the  period  of  the  70  weeks  reach  down  to  the  death  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  establishment  of  the  gospel 
dispensation  on  his  resurrection  and  ascension ;  that  "  the 
Messiah  the  Prince"  is  Jesus  made  both  Lord  and  Christ,  the 
same  with  the  person  seen  in  the  vision  in  chap  vii.  as  "one 
like  the  Son  of  man"  to  whom  was  given  an  everlasting  do- 
minion that  all  nations  should  serve  him. 

24  Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  people  and  upon  thy 
holy  city,  to  finish  the  transgression,  and  to  make  an  end  of  sins, 
and  to  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity,  and  to  bring  in  everlasting 
righteousness,  and  to  seal  up  the   vision  and  prophecy,  and  to 

25  anoint  the  Most  Holy.  Know  therefore  and  understand,  that  from 
the  going  forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore  and  to  build  Jeru- 
salem unto  the  Messiah  the  Prince  shall  he  seven  weeks,  and  three- 
score and  two  weeks  :  the  street  shall  be  built  again,  and  the  wall, 

26  even  in  troublous  times.  And  afler  threescore  and  two  weeks 
shall  Messiah  be  cut  off,  but  not  for  himself:  and  the  people  of  the 


^*  OF  TBE 

UNIVERS 

INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  24 ^Sil^Cs    -  1^5^^ 

prince  that  shall  come  shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanet»a*y ; 
and  the  end  thereof  5/ifl?Z  be  with  a  flood,  and  unto  the  end  of  the 
27  war  desolations  are  determined.  And  he  shall  confirm  the  cove- 
nant with  many  for  one  week  :  and  in  the  midst  of  the  week  he 
shall  cause  the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation  to  cease,  and  for  the  over- 
spreading of  abominations,  he  shall  make  it  desolate,  even  until 
the  consummation,  and  that  determined  shall  be  poured  upon  the 
desolate. 

The  occasion  on  which  this  prophecy  was  given  is  narra- 
ted in  the  preceding  part  of  the  chapter.  In  the  first  year  of 
the  same  Darius  mentioned  11:  1,  (called  in  9:  1,  the  son  of 
Ahasueras,  i.  e.  Astyages  I,  and  not  the  Ahasuerus  o^  Ezra 
and  Esther,)  and  when  Babylon  had  fallen  before  the  victori- 
ous army  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  it  was  known  to  Daniel 
that  the  70  years'  captivity,  as  specified  by  Jeremiah  the  pro- 
phet, was  drawing  to  an  end.  One  great  event  predicted  by 
Jeremiah,  that  at  the  close  of  the  seventy  years  Babylon  in 
its  turn  should  be  made  desolate,  and  its  kings  no  longer 
reign,  was  already  accomplished,  Jer.  25:  12 — 14  and  Dan. 
5:  31.  The  other  great  event  that  the  Jews  should  then  be 
restored  to  Jerusalem,  now  remained,  Jer.  29:  10 — 14.  In 
connexion  with  the  promise  of  their  return  it  was  also  added, 
"  Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  find  me,  when  ye  shall  search  for 
me  with  all  your  heart."  With  this  spirit  of  earnest  suppli- 
cation, Daniel  now  sought  the  Lord  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise.  He  prayed  in  behalf  of  Israel,  he  identified  himself 
with  them,  felt  their  lot  his,  their  transgressions  and  iniquity 
his,  their  punishment  his ;  he  confessed  not  only  the  sins  of 
his  countrymen,  but  his  own  sins,  righteous  man  though  he 
was ;  and  God  was  truly  found  of  him,  while  he  thus  sought 
him  and  implored  his  mercies  and  forgivenesses  with  the  whole 
heart.  While  he  was  praying,  an  angel  sent  from  heaven 
came  near  and  touched  him.  It  was  the  same  angel  whom 
the  prophet  "  had  seen  in  the  vision  at  the  beginning" — i.  e. 
not  only  in  the  vision  recorded  in  chap,  viii,  but  also  that  in 
chap.  vii.     He  was  sent  at  the  beginning  of  the  prophet's  vi- 


166  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  24 27. 

sions  (and  they  commenced  with  chap,  vii,)  to  interpret  them. 
He  came  for  the  first  time,  chap,  vii,  seventeen  years  previous 
to  this  vision  in  chap.  ix.  He  came  a  second  time,  chap,  viii, 
two  years  after  the  first,  and  he  comes  now  a  third  time,  fif- 
teen years  after  the  second,  and  the  next  year  after  the  death 
of  Belshazzar.  The  prophet  refers  thus  to  him  to  identify 
him  as  the  messenger  sent  again  and  again  to  reveal  to  him 
future  events. 

The  angel  introduces  his  prophetic  message  with  the  fol- 
lowing words,  vs.  22,  23, — "O  Daniel,  I  am  now  come  forth 
to  give  thee  skill  and  understanding.  At  the  beginning  of 
thy  supplications  the  commandment  came  forth,  and  I  am 
come  to  show  thee :  for  thou  art  greatly  beloved  :  therefore 
understand  the  matter,  and  consider  the  vision."  It  is  affirm- 
ed with  singular  assurance  by  those  who  teach  the  personal 
appearing  of  Christ  A.  D.  1843,  that  the  words  "the  vision," 
in  connection  with  the  prophet's  allusion  to  the  angel  as  one 
whom  he  had  "  seen  in  the  vision  at  the  beginning,"  refer 
back  to  the  vision  in  chap,  viii ;  that  the  prophet  not  under- 
standing it,  the  angel  was  sent  to  make  clear  to  him  what  he 
did  not  understand,  and  that  the  only  parts  not  before  under- 
stood were  the  length  of  a  day  and  when  to  commence  the 
2300  days.  Accordingly  they  say  that  this  prophecy  of  the 
70  weeks  was  given  to  teach  Daniel  to  commence  the  2300 
days  of  the  previous  vision  in  chap.  viii.  with  ''the  going  forth 
of  the  commandment"  mentioned  9:  25.  Now  so  far  as  the 
phrase  "  in  the  vision  at  the  beginning"  is  concerned,  it  re- 
fers to  chap.  vii.  rather  than  to  chap,  viii;  for  undoubtedly 
Gabriel  was  the  angel  who  revealed  to  Daniel  the  events  men- 
tioned in  chap,  vii,  and  the  phrase  "  at  the  beginning,"  like 
the  words  in  8:  1,  "  that  which  appeared  unto  me  at  the  first," 
goes  back  to  the  first  vision  which  is  recorded  in  chap.  vii. 
But  not  to  dwell  on  this,  let  any  plain  man  put  these  two  vi- 
sions side  by  side,  and  ask  whether,  on  supposition  that  such 
were  the  points  not  understood  by  the  prophet  in  the  vision 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  24 27.  167 

in  chap,  viii,  the  angel's  communication  looks  anything  like 
a  direct  solution  of  them  ?  Would  any  person  in  heaven 
above  or  in  the  earth  beneath,  that  knew  how  to  use  language, 
so  meet  the  points  on  which  the  mind  of  the  prophet  was  sup- 
posed to  be  laboring  1 

There  is  a  mode  of  speech  in  the  first  verse  of  chap,  x, 
which  is  precisely  like  the  one  in  question,  and  it  will  decide 
the  point — "  In  the  third  year  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia  a  thing 
was  revealed  unto  Daniel  .  .  .  and  he  understood  the  thing, 
and  had  understanding  of  the  vision."  Now  it  is  manifest 
that  the  vision  mentioned  10:  1,  refers  to  what  the  angel  is 
yet  to  say,  what  the  angel  reveals  in  the  verses  following.  So 
here  in  chap.  ix.  he  says,  "At  the  beginning  of  thy  supplica- 
tions the  commandment  came  forth,  [it  literally  reads  a  thing 
was  promulgated,  i.  e.  the  matter  of  the  following  prophecy 
in  vs.  24 — ^27;  for  the  word  is  the  same  with  that  translated 
**  thing"  in  10:  1,]  and  I  am  come  to  show  thee  ;  [the  force 
of  the  original  is  that  the  angel  came  to  show  the  thing  to 
Daniel  which  had  been  promulgated  in  heaven;]  therefore 
understand  the  matter  [it  is  the  same  word  translated 
"  thing"],  and  consider  the  vision."  Now  as  the  phrase  '*  the 
vision"  in  chap.  x.  refers  to  the  "thing"  mentioned  in  the 
first  clause,  and  embraces  the  events  which  are  related  af- 
terwards, so  here  in  chap.  ix.  the  same  phrase  "  the  vision" 
refers  to  the  "thing"  mentioned  in  the  first  clause  of  v.  23, 
and  embraces  not  the  events  which  have  been  related  before, 
but  the  events  which  are  related  aftenoards  in  vs.  24 — ^27. 
So  utterly  without  support  is  the  argument  which  is  made 
the  very  key-stone  of  the  doctrine  of  the  second  advent  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  A.  D.  1843.  But  see  further  on  last 
clause  but  one  of  verse  24. 

That  all  was  clear  to  Daniel,  no  man  in  his  senses  would 
assert ;  but  that  the  obscurity  was  in  regard  to  when  to  com- 
mence the  2300  days,  and  that  the  angel  came  to  clear  up 
this,  has  not  a  shadow  of  support.     The  prophet  doubtless 


168  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  24. 

found  it  difficult  to  reconcile  the  events  asserted  both  in  chaps, 
vii.  and  viii,  with  the  promise  of  deliverance  from  captivity. 
He  supposed  and  hoped  there  would  be  no  more  such  severe 
trials  to  go  through.  No  wonder  that  after  the  lapse  of  fif- 
teen or  seventeen  years  from  those  two  visions,  and  about 
the  time  of  the  end  of  the  70  weeks  predicted  as  the  period 
of  the  captivity,  he  became  deeply  solicitous  for  the  result. 
The  same  angel  who  had  communicated  the  knowledge  of 
sad  events  yet  to  take  place,  and  who  had  also  promised  that 
the  kingdom  should  finally  be  given  to  the  saints,  appears 
again  to  him,  to  tell  him  how  much  longer  time  should  elapse 
before  the  Great  Deliverer,  the  Messiah  should  come,  and  he 
makes  70  weeks  this  appointed  period,  beginning  with  a  spe- 
cified event. 

Verse  24. 

Seventy  weeks. 

This  verse  contains  the  summary  of  the  events  of  the  vi- 
sion. It  is  the  germ  of  which  vs.  25 — 27  are  the  develop- 
ment. The  first  inquiry  is,  Are  these  weeks  of  days  ?  Is 
this  a  period  of  time  extending  only  a  little  beyond  a  year  ? 
Would  Daniel  and  the  Jews  of  his  time  so  understand  it  ? 
Can  we  who  live  in  the  light  of  history  so  understand  it  1 
There  is  in  the  original  a  peculiarity  of  phraseology,  there  is 
a  figure  of  speech  used  which  is  called  paronomasia^  in  which 
the  words  resemble  each  other  in  sense  or  sound,  (they  are 
here  shaw-voo-eem,  shiv-eem,)  and  when  this  figure  is  used 
it  is  indicative  of  peculiar  emphasis  or  significancy.  Now  as 
the  prophet  Jeremiah  had  predicted  that  the  Jews  should  be 
restored  at  the  expiration  of  70  years,  and  as  Daniel  made 
that  promise  the  basis  of  his  supplications,  and  the  angel 
came  while  he  was  praying,  such  an  announcement  of  70 
weeks  or  70  sevens,  with  the  peculiar  significancy  of  the  ^«- 
ronomasia,  would  naturally   make  the  impression  that  70 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9;  24.  169 

sevens  of  years  were  meant.  Added  to  this,  the  announce- 
ment of  sucli  a  chain  of  events,  which  could  not  haste  to 
their  accomplishment  within  the  brief  period  of  little  more 
than  a  year,  would  secure  Daniel  and  those  for  whom  the 
pr(>phecy  was  given,  and  every  reader  of  it,  against  the  limi- 
tation of  the  weeks  to  weeks  of  days.  Some  interpreters 
have  found  an  argument  for  the  weeks  of  years  in  a  phrase 
in  chap.  10:  2  translated  "three  full  weeks;"  which  is  lite- 
rally three  weeks  days,  and  which  they  suppose  implies  that 
"  weeks"  had  been  used  in  the  previous  vision  in  the  sense 
of  years.  But  the  grammatical  construction  is  not  "  three 
weeks  o/days,"  and  usage  confirms  the  interpretation  of  the 
word  days,  in  the  original,  as  it  is  in  our  translation — **  three 
full  weeks" — or  three  weeks  long,  See  Gen.  41:  1.  Jer.  28: 
3,  11,  where  it  is  literally  two  years  days,  i.  e.  two  years 
long,  or  two  years  time — precisely  the  same  sort  of  expres- 
sion found  in  10:  2. 

But  is  there  any  authority  in  the  Scriptures  for  reckoning 
these  70  weeks  as  weeks  of  years  ?  Was  there  such  a  mode 
of  reckoning  time  among  the  Jews.  There  was  such  a  mode, 
and  Daniel  may  well  be  supposed  to  be  familiar  with  it. 
Among  their  directions  in  respect  to  the  sabbatical  year  and 
year  of  jubilee,  was  the  following ;  Lev.  25:  8,  "  And  thou 
shalt  number  seven  sabbaths  of  years,  seven  times  seven 
years ;  and  the  space  of  the  seven  sahhaths  of  years  shall  he  un- 
to thee  forty  and  nine  years.^^  The  only  difference  between 
the  two  instances  in  Daniel  and  Leviticus  is,  that  in  the  for- 
mer it  is  weeks  and  in  the  latter  it  is  sabbaths.  But  there  is 
clear  evidence  that  these  two  words  sabbaths  and  weeks  were 
used  as  synonymous,  and  interchanged  with  each  other ;  for 
in  Lev.  23:  15  it  thus  reads :  *'  Ye  shall  count  unto  you  from 

the  morrow  after  the  sabbath, seven  sabbaths  shall 

be  complete,"  and  in  Deut.  16:  9,  where  the  same  subject  is 
spoken  of,  it  reads,  "  Seven  weeks  shalt  thou  number  unto 
thee."     The  reckoning  therefore  by  sabbaths  or  weeks  of 
15 


170  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  24. 

years  was  put  down  in  the  Jewish  code  of  laws  as  one  mode 
of  computing  time.  It  is  not  emblematical,  as  where  Ezekiel 
is  told  to  put  days  for  years,  nor  what  some  have  called  pro- 
phetical, but  it  is  an  established  mode  of  computing  time. 
Nor  was  this  usage  confined  to  the  Jews.  Marcus  Varro,  a 
Roman  writer  born  116  years  B.  C,  wrote  some  books  which 
he  called  Hehdomades,  (or  Weeks,)  in  the  first  of  which, 
having  developed  the  significancy  of  the  number  7,  he  says, 
that  "he  had  now  entered  on  the  11th  hebdomad  [or  week] 
of  years,  and  up  to  that  day  had  written  seventy  htbdomades 
of  books,"* — i.  e.  he  was  11  times  7  years  old,  and  was  the 
author  of  70  times  7  treatises.  Another  ancient  author,  Ma- 
crobius,  who  lived  in  the  times  of  the  Roman  emperor  Theo- 
dosius,  and  enjoyed  much  of  the  imperial  patronage,  says  in 
commenting  on  Cicero's  Dream  of  Scipio,  "  From  the  sixth  to 
the  seventh  week  there  is  a  diminution  of  strength;  but  it  is 
hidden,  and  does  not  manifest  itself  by  any  outward  defect. 
Hence  it  was  the  custom  in  some  republics  not  to  oblige  a 
man  to  go  to  the  wars  after  the  sixth  week,"  i.  e.  after  42 
years  of  age.f  Here  is  the  same  phraseology  that  is  used  in 
the  prophet  Daniel,  and  though  '*  years"  in  the  first  quotation 
is  explicitly  given,  it  is  only  in  contrast  with  "  books"  in  the 
other  clause  of  the  sentence,  and  is  not  added  for  the  sake 
of  explaining  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  weeks." 

One  more  inqury  is.  Are  we  to  understand  the  70  weeks 
of  years  as  a  period  of  490  years — nor  more  nor  less  ?  J     How 


*  Quoted  in  RosenmQller's  Commentary  on  Daniel,  p.  297. 

t  Quoted  in  Dr.  Adam  Clarke's  Commentary  on  Daniel,  chap.  xi. 

X  RosenmOller  says,  that  "  those  labor  in  vain  who  try  to  make  the 
70  weeks,  together  with  the  deeds  done  during  that  space  of  time, 
conform  to  an  exact  and  definite  number  of  years,"  and  he  orives  it  as 
his  opinion  that  "the  number  seventy  was  chosen  by  the  author  of  the 
book  merely  on  account  of  the  paronomasia  above  mentioned ;  that 
the  author  did  not  wish  tliem  to  be  numbered  so  exactly  as  that  there 
should  be  nothing  redundant  or  deficient,  and  that  they  do  not  extend 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9*.  24.  171 

can  we  understand  it  differently,  if  this  is  indeed  a  veritable, 
genuine  prophecy,  which  most  certainly  it  is  ?  How  can  it 
be  otherwise,  if  even  a  heathen  writer  uses  similar  phraseolo- 
gy in  an  exact,  definite  sense  ?  How  otherwise,  since  the  70 
years  were  to  be  understood  literally,  and  since  all  other  pe- 
riods of  time  thus  far  found  in  Daniel  are  to  be  understood 
literally  1  Would  not  Daniel  so  understand  it  ?  Is  it  not 
due  to  the  prophecy  to  search  carefully  first  of  all  for  events 
in  history  to  correspond  with  the  events  in  the  order  and  time 
of  their  occurrence  here  predicted  ?  If  there  are  such  events 
to  be  found,  corresponding  with  the  period  of  their,  predic- 
tion, then  we  are  to  fix  on  them,  and  on  no  others ;  and  their 
very  peculiarity,  and  the  peculiarity  of  the  time  specified,  will 
place  this  prophecy  among  the  very  highest  examples  of  pro- 
phetic inspiration. 

Are  determined  upon  thy  people  and  upon  thy  holy  city. 

Are  determined  is  literally  are  cut  off,  viz.  from  any  indefi- 
nite space  of  time,  thence  are  measured  off,  are  determined. 
The  word  is  one  of  those  found  only  once  in  the  Bible. —  Up- 
on thy  people,  etc.  i.  e.  over  or  for  Daniel's  countrymen  and 
native  city,  Compare  11:14,  "  Robbers  of  thy  people,"  and  12: 
1,  "Children  of  thy  people,"  also  v.  20  of  this  same  chap- 
ter, "  While  I  was  confessing  the  sin  of  my  people  Israel." 

To  finish  the  transgression  and  to  make  an  end  of  sins,  and  to  make 
reconciliation  for  iniquity,  and  to  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness. 

To  finish  the  transgression  is  literally  to  shut  up  the  trans- 
gression, (the  definite  article  being  in  the  original,)  i.  e.  to 
restrain  it  and  prevent  its  ravages. — "  To  make  an  end  of 
sins,"  is  literally  to  seal  up  the  sins.     The  translation  in  the 

beyond  the  times  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,"  Comm.  on  Daniel,  pp. 
320,  321—324.  He  however,  as  indeed  all  interpreters,  makes  the 
weeks  sevens  vf  years,  though  he  discards  precision  in  the  use  of  the 
numbers  70,  7  and  62. 


172  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  24. 

text  seems  to  be  the  proper  though  secondary  meaning  in 
this  place.  The  word  denotes  the  finishing  of  sins  and  re- 
moving them  out  of  sight,  as  by  a  seal  a  letter  is  closed  and 
its  contents  shut  up  from  view. — In  the  clause  to  make  recon- 
(iiliationfor  iniquity,  the  verb  literally  means  to  cover ,  and 
alludes  to  the  mercy-seat — the  ilasterion — the  same  **  propi- 
tiation "mentioned  in  Romans  3:  25 — which  is  derived  from 
the  verb  "  to  cover.'''*  Christ  crucified  is  the  true  propitiation. 
In  him,  as  on  the  mercy-seat,  God  declares  his  mercy  to  the 
believing  and  penitent.  "  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  unto  himself  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them," 
1  Cor.  5:  19.  The  words  transgression,  and  sins,  and  ini- 
quity, refer  to  those  acts  of  transgression  w  hich  the  prophet 
had  been  confessing  in  his  prayer,  vs.  5,  7,  11,  etc.,  and  not 
to  the  transgression  mentioned  in  8:  12,  13,  23.  The  gene- 
ral idea  seems  to  be  not  that  of  filling  up  the  measure  of  their 
iniquities,  as  in  chap,  viii,  but  that  of  the  forgiveness  and  re- 
moval of  sins. — **  To  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness," 
means  to  introduce  for  God's  people  a  permanent  state  of  de- 
liverance from  sin,  Comp.  Dan.  11:  44,  and  7:  27,  "ever- 
lasting kingdom  ;"  also  Luke  1:  74,  75,  "That  he  would 
grant  unto  us  that  we  being  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of  our 
enemies,  might  serve  him  without  fear,  in  holiness  and  right- 
eousness all  the  days  of  pur  life."  Some  translate  the  phrase, 
the  righteousness  of  ancient  times;  but  the  context  does  not 
favor  it. 

And  to  seal  up  the  vision  and  prophecy. 

Literally,  to  seal  up  vision  and  prop  Ik  t.  To  seal,  is  to 
close  up  and  make  fast  with  a  seal — whence  to  make  sure,  to 
attest,  confirm,  fulfil ;  also  to  bring  to  a  ch  se  or  hide  from 
view,  as  we  have  seen  on  the  phrase  "to  make  an  end  of 
sins."  It  must  here  dencite  to  make  sure  by  fulJiUing,  viz. 
what  Daniel  had  seen  in  vision  and  what  pn  phets  had  pre- 
dicted.    It  may  further  teach  that  at  the  end  of  the  seventy 


INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  2:  24.  173 

weeks  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  was  to  be  brought  to 
a  close,  was  as  it  were  to  be  sealed  up  and  laid  aside,  even 
as  it  is  said  in  Heb.  8:  13,  "  In  that  he  saith,  A  new  cove- 
nant, he  hath  made  the  first  old.  Now  that  which  decayeth 
and  waxeth  old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away."  Nothing  would 
seem  plainer  than  that  if  the  seventy  weeks  are  the  key  to 
the  2300  days,  and  the  angel  was  sent  to  tell  the  prophet 
when  to  begin  them,  then  the  seventy  weeks  finish  the  2300 
days,  for  the  seventy  weeks  seal  up  the  vision.* 

And  to  anoint  the  Most  Holy. 

The  designation  "  Most  Holy,"  is  the  same  with  that  ren- 
dered in  the  Scriptures  the  holiest,  the  most  holy  place,  the 
most  holy  things.  It  is  never  applied  in  the  Old  Testament 
to  persons,  but  only  to  places  and  things.  In  regard  to  the 
phrase  "  most  holy  place,"  i.  e.  the  part  of  the  temple  within 
the  vail,  it  varies  somewhat  from  "  Most  Holy  "  in  this  verse, 
which  last  is  the  exact  phrase  translated  elsewhere  *'  most 
holy  things,"  such  as  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  the  altar  of 
incense,  the  ark,  the  table  of  shew-bread,  the  candlestick, 
the  laver,  etc.  The  signification  "  most  holy  "  in  this  verse 
seems  to  be  general,  and  borrowed  from  the  whole  tabernacle 
including  its  vessels  which  were  anointed  with  the  holy 
anointing  oil,  Exod.  30:  22 — 30.  There  is  however  a  phrase 
used  by  the  angel  Gabriel  in  announcing  the  birth  of  Jesus 

*  Mr.  Wm.  Miller,  Lectures,  p.  62,  renders  the  word  "  to  seal  up/' 
to  make  sure,  certain,  unalterable.  He  gives  only  this  one  definition 
of  the  word.  Of  course  it  has  not  this  meaning  in  the  clause  "to 
seal  up  the  sins,"  which  he  takes  rightly  in  the  sense  oH putting  aicay, 
but  which  he  does  not  seem  to  know  is  the  same  word  with  that  in 
the  phrase  "  to  seal  up  the  vision  and  prophecy."  Nor  can  this  word 
have  this  meaning  of  ''  making  sure,"  in  Rev.  20:  30,  "  Seal  not  the 
sayings  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book."  The  seventy  weeks  however 
"make  sure  "  the  vision  hy  fulfilling  it,  and  if  the  vision  of  the  2300 
days  were  meant,  the  seventy  weeks  would  of  course  close  them  up 
and  end  them. 

15* 


174  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  25. 

to  Mary,  which  might  justify  the  application  of  the  phrase 
"Most  Holy"  to  our  Savior, — '*  Therefore  that  most  holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  Gcd," 
Luke  1:  35.  Nevertheless,  as  this  use  of  "  most  holy,"  is 
not  found  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  it  may  be  more 
legitimately  applied  to  describe  the  establishment  of  the  purer 
worship  of  the  Father  taught  by  our  Savior  the  Messiah — the 
building  up  of  the  Christian  Church  on  the  foundation  of 
apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner  stone,  Eph.  2:  20 — the  consecration  of  the  sanctuary 
and  true  tabernacle  which  the  Lord  pitched  and  not  man, 
Heb.  8:  2 — the  endowment  of  those  who  constitute  the  true 
Church  of  Christ  with  the  gifts  and  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Can  such  declarations  as  these  mean  anything  short  of  the 
gospel  dispensation  1  Who  dees  not  at  once  feel  the  inade- 
c^uacy  of  the  interpretation  given  by  Rosenmiiller  and  others, 
that  the  prediction  is  bounded  by  the  times  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  as  the  most  remote  limits,  and  that  it  denotes  **  the 
end  of  the  exile  with  which  God  would  punish  the  contumacy 
of  the  Jews  ;  the  fulfilment  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy  ccncern- 
ing  the  Captivity,  and  the  dedication  of  the  temple  and  res- 
toration of  sacred  worship  ?"  If  this  verse  24  applies  to  Christ, 
and  to  the  gospel  dispensation  set  up  subsequently  to  his 
death;  if  the  24th  verse  is,  as  before  remarked,  the  summary 
of  the  vision,  and  the  other  verses  its  unfolding  and  explana- 
tion, then  must  vs.  25 — 27  refer  likewise  to  the  same. 

Verse  25. 

Know  therefore  and  understand,  that  from  the  going  forth  of  the 
commandment  to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem. 

Here  without  question  commence  the  70  weeks.  What 
and  when  was  this  commandment.  There  was  a  promise 
made  to  Jeremiah,  29:  10,  (Comp.  also  25:  J 1,  12,)  about 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  25.  175 

598  B.  C,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  That  after  seventy  years 
be  accomplished  at  Babylon  I  will  visit  you,  and  perform  my 
good  word  to  you,  in  causing  you  to  return  to  this  place." 
This,  as  Rosenmiiller  and  others  suppose,  was  *'  the  com- 
mandment." 

Again,  there  was  a  commandment  issued  by  Cyrus,  in  his 
first  year,  536  B.  C.  It  was  predicted  by  Isaiah  44:  28, 
"  That  saith  of  Cyrus,  He  is  my  shepherd,  and  shall  perform 
all  my  pleasure ;  even  saying  to  Jerusalem,  Thou  shalt  be 
built,  and  to  the  temple.  Thy  foundation  shall  be  laid." — This 
commandment  is  recorded  as  matter  of  history  in  Ezra  i,  and 
consequent  upon  it  was  the  return  of  50,000  Jews  out  of  Bab- 
ylon to  their  native  land. 

There  are  yet  other  points  of  time.  The  work  of  rebuild- 
ing Jerusalem,  which  was  commenced  in  the  first  year  of  Cy^ 
rus,  was  obstructed  and  interrupted  through  the  malice  of  the 
surrounding  people,  until  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  520 
B.  C,  issued  a  decree  in  favor  of  the  Jews,  when  the  work  of 
the  temple  was  resumed,  and  dedicated  515  B.  C,  Ezra  6: 
7—12. 

Subsequent  to  this  was  a  decree  by  Artaxerxes  Longimanus, 
in  the  7th  year  of  his  reign,  which  many  chronologists  fix  at 
457  B.  C.  This  decree  was  carried  to  Jerusalem  by  Ezra, 
who  was  also  accompanied  by  a  large  number  of  the  Jews 
that  had  not  before  returned  ;  and  when  the  decree  was  hand- 
ed to  the  king's  officers  in  the  land,  "  they  furthered  the  peo- 
ple and  the  house  of  God." 

There  was  still  another  decree  given  in  the  20th  year  of 
Artaxerxes  to  Nehemiah.  The  walls  had  until  that  time  re- 
mained in  the  state  in  which  they  were  left  by  Nebuchadnez- 
zar— "  broken  down,  and  the  gates  thereof  burned  with  fire," 
and  the  people  were  "  in  great  affliction  and  reproach,"  Neh. 
1:  3.  When  Nehemiah  who  was  at  that  time  cup-bearer  to 
the  king  heard  this,  he  set  himself  to  fasting  and  prayer,  as 
Daniel  also  had  done ;  and  having  first  prayed  that  God  would 


176  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9*.  25. 

give  him  mercy  in  the  sight  of  Artaxerxes,  he  asked  and  ob- 
tained letters  patent  that  he  might  be  sent  to  the  city  of  his 
fathers'  sepulchres  to  build  it,  and  be  furnished  with  timber 
for  the  gates  of  the  temple,  and  the  wall  of  the  city,  Neh.  ii. 
From  that  period  the  walls  of  the  city  went  forward  until  they 
were  completed.  Under  the  auspices  of  Nehemiah  both 
church  and  state  were  greatly  reformed,  Jerusalem  was  better 
inhabited,  "  the  people  being  few  therein"  up  to  that  time, 
"  and  the  houses  not  builded,"  Neh.  7:  4.  There  would 
seem  to  be  an  adequate  reason  in  these  circumstances  for  dat- 
ing "the  commandment  to  restore  Jerusalem"  at  this  point 
of  time.  Did  the  commandment  however  issue  from  God,  or 
from  an  earthly  source  ?  Doubtless  the  former,  though  not 
excluding  human  instrumentality — even  as  God  said  of  Cyrus, 
Is.  44:  28,  as  above  quoted,  He  shall  perform  all  my  pleasure, 
even  saying  to  Jerusalem,  Thou  shalt  be  built ;  and  to  the 
temple,  Thy  foundation  shall  be  laid.  According  to  the 
usual  chronology,  Artaxerxes  began  his  reign  464  or  465  B. 
C;  and  the  twentieth  year  of  his  reign  according  to  this 
would  be  445  or  446  B.  C.  But  by  other  chronologists,  and 
by  Calmet  among  the  number,  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxer- 
xes was  in  the  year  of  the  world  3550 ;  454  years  before 
Christ's  actual  birth  allowing  for  Calmet's  computation  that 
Christ  was  not  born  until  4004  years  from  the  creation  of  the 
world. 

With  these  several  points  of  time  in  view,  (which  are  the 
only  ones  given  in  history,  and  the  only  ones  assumed  in  all 
and  any  of  the  various  interpretations  given  to  this  vision,) 
we  come  now  to  definite  periods  within  the  seventy  weeks. 

Unto  the  Messiali  the  Prince. 

These  two  words  are  each  without  the  definite  article,  and 
by  some,  as  by  RosenmiJller,  they  are  translated  an  anointed 
Prince,  the  word  Messiah  being  taken  as  an  adjective — which 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  25.  177 

it  often  is ;  and  though  the  Hebrew  usage  has  generally  in  a 
phrase  thus  translated  the  adjective  placed  after  the  noun, 
and  not  as  it  is  here  before  it  in  construction,  yet  there  are 
exceptions  to  this  general  rule,  as  Is.  53:  11,  7ny  righteous 
servant,  Gen.  17:  14,  uneircumcised  man  child,  and  therefore 
such  a  translation  would  have  its  sanction  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  may  be  the  true  one.  Admit  it  to  be  the  true  one, 
[an  anointed  one,  a  prince, — would  be  more  correct,)  yet 
the  individual  may  have  been  as  distinctly  presented  by  the 
angel  before  the  prophet's  mind,  as  if  he  had  used  the  article. 
We  have  only  to  suppose  that  the  prophet  has  here  the  previ- 
ous vision  of  the  fifth  kingdom  in  his  mind  as  recorded  in 
chap,  vii,  "  Behold  one  like  the  Son  of  man  came  ....  and 
there  was  given  him  a  kingdom," — and  the  appellation  an 
anointed  prince  would  be  perfectly  definite  to  him.  He  would 
at  once  identify  him  with  the  one  he  saw  in  that  vision  ;  and 
it  is  not  unworthy  of  notice  that  the  very  phrase  "  one  like 
the  Son  of  man"  is  in  the  original  as  indefinite  as  an  anointed 
prince  here.  But  the  translation  as  it  stands  in  our  version 
has  the  suflTrage  and  approbation  of  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished Hebrew  scholars  now  living,*  who  thus  remarks, — 
"  The  translation  is  correct  and  in  accordance  with  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  prophet  or  poet  frequently  omits  the  article  even 
where  the  noun  must  be  regarded  as  definite.  In  Daniel's 
vivid  descriptitm  of  the  vision  he  likewise  omits  the  article 
before  other  nouns  where  the  prose  writer  would  be  required 
to  use  it,  as  they  are  undoubtedly  definite — for  instance  in  the 
expression  **  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment,"  the  word 
"  commandment"  is  without  the  article.  Hence  the  words 
unto  the  Messiah  are  left  without  the  article  not  because  the 
prophet  wishes  to  make  his  statement  indefinite,  but  because 
its  definiteness  is  so  clear  and  obvious  before  his  excited 
mind,  that  he  considers  it  unnecessary  to  point  it  out  by 
means  of  the  article." 

*  Piof.  Nordheimer  in  his  letter  to  Prof.  Stuart,  Bib.  Repos.  Oct.  1841. 


178  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  25. 

Some  have  also  found  difficulty  in  the  use  of  the  word 
translated  "  prince"  to  denote  the  Messiah,  because  it  is  of 
various  and  secondary  signification,  when  if  the  angel  had 
meant  the  Messiah  he  would  have  used  the  appellation  "the 
king,"  as  the  appropriate  word.*  But  the  word  "  prince"  is 
every  way  expressive.  It  is  found  11:  22,  applied  to  the 
high-priest  "  prince  of  the  covenant"  and  in  1  Sam.  13:  14, 
applied  to  David  as  the  king  of  Israel,  "The  Lord  hath 
sought  him  a  man  after  his  own  heart,  and  the  Lord  hath 
commanded  him  to  be  captain  over  his  people."  Its  prima- 
ry idea  is  that  of  being  first,  excellent,  in  which  last  signifi- 
cation it  is  used  in  Prov.  8:  6,  "  Hear,  for  I  will  speak  of  ex- 
cellent things."  It  is  more  expressive  and  larger  in  signifi- 
cation than  the  word  king,  for  that  is  employed  only  in  the 
sense  of  ruling.  And  to  decide  the  point  beyond  question, 
the  appellation  "  prince  of  peace"  is  given  to  the  Messiah,  Is. 
9:  6,  where  though  a  dififerent  word  is  used,  it  is  as  seconda- 
ry as  this  in  Dan.  9:  25. 

Who  then  is  designated  by  "  the  Messiah  the  Prince?" 
The  consideration  already  alluded  to,  that  the  prophet  had 
the  vision  of  the  fifth  kingdom  in  his  mind,  will  be  more  par- 
ticularly remarked  on  in  the  sequel  of  this  section.  The  pe- 
riods of  time  annexed  will  now  do  much  toward  determining 
the  question. 

Shall  be  seven  weeks,  and  threescore  and  tveo  weeks :  the  street 
shall  be  built  again,  and  the  wall  even  in  troublous  times. 

Between  the  clauses  "  seven  weeks"  and  "  threescore  and 
two  weeks"  there  is  in  the  original  a  pause-accent  of  the 
largest  kind,  and  this  has  been  made  the  ground  of  separa- 
ting the  two  clauses,  and  assigning  the  first  seven  weeks  as 
the  period  at  whose  close  the  anointed  prince  above  men- 
tioned should  come,  and  the  next  threescore  and  two  weeks 

*  Prof,  Stuart  in  Letter  to  Prof  Nordheimer,  Bib.  Repos.  Oct.  1841. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  25.  179 

as  the  period  during  which  the  street  and  wall  should  be 
built  again,  and  Jerusalem  restored  to  its  pristine  condition. 
But  (1)  the  same  pause-accent  sometimes  occurs  in  the  midst 
of  a  sentence  where  to  separate  the  parts  of  the  sentence  is 
grammatically  impossible.  For  instance  in  Gen.  1:  1,  "In 
the  beginninor  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  this 
same  pause-accent  is  between  the  words  created  and  the  hea- 
ven. While  this  accent  may  generally  mark  the  divisions  of 
sense,  it  with  the  others  may  only  direct  the  chanting,  or 
recitativo  reading  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  public  wor- 
ship. 

(2)  It  is  contrary  to  fact  and  absurd  to  suppose  that  "  the 
street  and  wall"  were  62  weeks  or  434  years  in  being  rebuilt ; 
nor  even  on  the  interpretation  of  those  who  synchronize  the 
expiration  of  the  62  weeks  with  the  death  of  Alexander,  can 
it  be  supposed  that  the  city  was  not  restored  as  here  mention- 
ed until  B.  C  324 — one  hundred  and  nineteen  years  subse- 
quent to  the  last  decree,  bringing  down  that  decree  as  late  as 
possible. 

(3)  The  expiration  of  the  seven  weeks  from  either  of  the 
above  mentioned  dates  assigned  to  the  several  decrees  or  com- 
mandments for  restoring  Jerusalem,  brings  us  to  no  "  prince" 
then  "  anointed."  It  does  not  bring  us  to  Cyrus,  whom  Ro- 
senmijller  and  others  suppose  to  be  designated ;  though  indeed 
this  consideration  touches  not  them,  because  they  arbitrarily 
disregard  all  precision  of  time  in  accounting  for  the  seven 
weeks.  From  the  taking  of  Babylon  538  B.  C,  or  from  Cy- 
rus' sole  reign  536  B.  C,  49  years  carry  us  back  only  to  587 
or  585  B.  C,  which  was  twelve  or  thirteen  years  after  the 
word  of  promise  mentioned  Jer.  29:  10,  the  date  which  Ro- 
senmiiller  fixes  on  ;  so  that  his  first  term  of  time  falls  short  by 
13  years,  and  he  makes  the  seven  weeks  equivalent  to  sixty- 
two  years  instead  of  forty-nine.  Cyrus  is  indeed  called  the 
"  anointed"  of  God,  Is.  45:  1  ;  but  this  title  being  given  him 
by  one  prophet,  is  no  proof  that  another  prophet  means  the 


180  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  25. 

same  person  when  he  uses  the  word  "  anointed  ;"  and  it  is 
certain  that  there  was  no  other  "  commandment"  between 
him  and  the  promise  given  to  Jeremiah. 

(4)  The  same  anointed  prince  seems  manifestly  spoken  of 
soon  after  as  coming  at  the  close  not  of  the  seven  weeks,  but 
af  the  62  weeks  following  the  seven,  viz.  v.  26 — "  and  after 
threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off."  The 
application  of  "  Messiah"  mentioned  v.  26,  to  Alexander  the 
Great,  or  to  Onias,  etc.,  will  be  noticed  in  the  proper  place. 
But  if  the  two  are  identical,  then  the  seven  weeks  and  three- 
score and  two  weeks  together  designate  one  period  and  are 
not  to  be  separated  in  the  construction  in  which  they  stand, 
but  are  to  be  joined  together  in  order  to  mark  the  point  of 
time  when  the  anointed  prince  was  to  come.  From  the  date 
of  the  decree  to  his  coming  were  to  be  69  weeks  or  483  years. 
The  expression  is  indeed  peculiar,  and  there  ma)*  not  be  found 
in  the  Bible  a  phrase  exactly  in  the  form  of  this  to  denote  a 
definite  number,  but  no  usage  opposes  it.  The  Hebrew  has 
many  anomalies  greater  than  this,  it  has  its  peculiar  phrases 
and  these  found  only  in  one  instance,  and  the  context  is  of- 
ten the  sole  guide  to  their  meaning.  Let  the  reader  however 
weigh  this  phrase,  and  ask  whether  in  itself  it  seems  harsh 
and  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  language  ?  Let  him  decide 
between  this  unusual  employment  of  numbers,  (if  it  seems 
unusual,)  and  the  more  unusual  and  harsh  disregard  of  the 
numbers  70,  and  7,  and  62,  which  those  show  who  neverthe- 
less insist  upon  ascertained  and  definite  usage  in  regard  to 
the  clause  in  question. 

But  the  designation  of  7  weeks,  or  49  years,  along  with 
the  62  weeks,  was  to  mark  the  time  employed  in  the  re- 
building of  the  wall  and  city,  and  this  furnishes  a  sufficient 
solution  of  the  peculiarity  of  the  phrase  as  a  mode  of  desig- 
nating time.  When  Nehemiah  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  as 
above  mentioned,  the  city  was  thinly  inhabited,  and  its  walls 
were  yet  in  ruins.     They  raised  the  walls  that  same  year  by 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  25.  181 

unparalleled   exertions,  (though   it  appears  from    Josephus 
that  two  years  more  were  occupied  in  completing  them,) 
their  enemies  conspiring  for  their  defeat  and  showing  open 
hostility,  so  that  a  part  were  obliged  to  stand  in   armor  for 
the  protection  of  those  who  labored  on  the  walls,  and  the  la- 
borers themselves,  while  they  wrought  with  one  hand,  held  a 
weapon  in  the  other.*      This  speedy  erection  of  the  walls 
was  because  "the  people  had  a  mind  to  work,"  Neh.  4:  6; 
and  when  the  walls  were  once  raised  as  a  shield  of  defence, 
they  could  proceed  more  regularly.     The  word  wall  is  how- 
ever in  the  original  moat  or  ditch.,  and  such  is  the  marginal 
reading.     The  moat  implies  the  wall.     The  street  was  the 
open  place  prepared  for  the  people  to  assemble  in  a  sort  of 
forum,  as  was  the  custom  in  oriental  cities,  Comp.  Neh.  8:  1, 
"  And  all  the  people  gathered  themselves  together  as  one 
man  in  the  street  before  the  water-gate,"  probably  the  gate 
through  which  the  people  of  the  city  went  to  the  brook  Ke- 
dron.     But  as  yet  "  the  houses  were  not  builded,"  Neh.  vii, 
nor  were  things  restored  to  their  former  regular  condition^ 
Nehemiah  remained  twelve  years,  (Neh.  13:  6,)  but  it  ap- 
pears that  he  had  not  been  able  fully  to  restore  matters.     After 
some  space  of  time,  it  is  not  said  how  long,  he  went  up  again 
and  reformed  abuses  still  existing.    There  is  no  further  record 
of  him,  or  of  the  work  of  restoration,  in  the  Bible ;  but  Jose- 
phus relates  that  he  died  at  a  very  advanced  age,  and  it  is  al- 
together probable  that  the  work  begun  by  him  and  carried  on 
for  many  years,  required  as  long  a  space  as  the  seven  weeks  or 
49  years  for  its  completion.     The  clause  '*  the  street  shall  be 
built  again,  etc."  is  of  the  same  import  with  *'  to  restore  and 
to  build  Jerusalem,"  and  the  preparation  of  the  street  or  fo- 

*  Michaelis  objecting  to  the  applieation  of  the  seven  weeks  ofyearsto 
the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem,  says  that  the  Jews  enjoyed  peace,  and 
were  in  a  tolerable  state  of  things  for  the  first  49  years,  under  Artax- 
erxes  (who  lived  30  years  after  his  decree)  and  under  Darius  Nothus 
(who  reigned  19  years) ;  but  this  is  in  the  very  face  of  facts. 

16 


182  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  26. 

rum  for  judicial  transactions  and  purposes  of  buying  and  sell- 
ing, seems  a  summary  declaration  of  the  full  restoration  of 
their  former  flourishing  municipal  state. 

Verse  26. 

And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  Mesciah  lio  cut  off. 

We  come  now  to  the  sixty-two  weeks  following  the  seven, 
or  483  years  in  all  from  issuing  the  commandment.  At  the 
expiration  of  this  period  the  Messiah  should  be  cut  off",  i.  e. 
come  to  a  \iolent  death.  The  first  and  most  natural  impres- 
sion certainly  is,  that  Messiah  v.  26,  must  be  the  same  with 
Messiah  v.  25  ;*  for  '\Hioo  dijf'crmt  persons  were  meant,  there 
would  be  something  like  the  phrase  "  one  other"  in  11:  5  to 
show  it,  but  there  is  no  such  mark  of  distinction.  The  two 
are  one  and  the  same  unless  there  is  something  in  the  con- 
text to  make  it  impossible ;  and  we  shall  see  there  is  nothing, 
and  that  both  must  refer  solely  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

RosenmiJller  having  applied  the  designation  **  Messiah," 
V.  25  to  Cyrus,  applies  this  in  v.  26  to  Alexander  the  Great, 
Comm.  p.  323.  But  as  Alexander  was  cut  off"  324  B.  C, 
this  makes  the  date  of  the  commandment  808  B.  C,  2] 8 
years  before  the  commandment  or  promise,  (Jer.  xxix,  598 
B.  C.,)  and  reduces  the  69  weeks  or  483  years  to  only  274 
years  at  most  (598 — 324=274) ;  and  the  reasons  he  assigns 
are  that  Alexander's  death  makes  a  conspicuous  epoch  be- 
tween Cyrus  and  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  that  as  Alexan- 
der is  mentioned  chaps,  ii,  vii,  viii,  and  xi,  it  is  incredible  he 
should  be  passed  over  in  chap.  ix. 

Others  suppose  Onias  to  be  meant  who  was  cut  off"  in  the 
reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  or  the  abolition  of  the  high- 
priesthood  at  the  time  of  the  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacri- 
fice ;  but  this  is  equally  without  regard  to  precision  of  time 

*  So  Prof  Nordheimer  considers  them,  See  his  letter  to  Prof  Stu- 
art, p.  417. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  26.  183 

in  the  periods  mentioned  ;  for  from  171  B.  C,  the  time  when 
Onias  was  cut  off,  483  years  would  extend  back  to  654 
B.  C,  56  years  before  the  earliest  date  fixed  on  by  any  for 
the  going  forth  of  the  commandment.  Neither  of  these  ap- 
plications is  admissible,  on  any  consideration  of  the  weeks  as 
portions  of  time  reckoned  by  fixed  laws,  and  in  a  regular 
manner ;  and  to  Rosen miiller's  interpretation  there  exists  the 
objection  that  he  makes  the  prophecy  destitute  of  all  propor- 
tion in  the  divisions  of  tame — stretching  the  first  seven  weeks 
to  twelve  or  thirteen  years  more  than  the  forty-nine  years,  and 
from  the  sixty-nine  weeks  cutting  off  full  two  hundred  and 
seventy-four  years.  Rosenmiiller  objects  to  an  interpretation 
by  Eichhorn,  (which  to  be  sure  is  arbitrary  enough;  for  from 
the  decree  of  Cyrus  granted  to  the  Jews,  he  reckons  hachoard 
to  Nebuchadnezzar  as  the  anointed  prince,  and  then  forward 
to  Onias  the  high-priest  as  the  anointed  one  cut  off,)  Rosen- 
muller  objects  to  this  that  Eichhorn  takes  many  things  at  will, 
and  disregards  all  established  usage  in  computing  the  years 
of  any  definite  epoch,  Commentary,  p.  322.  But  certainly 
the  same  objection  lies  as  strong  against  his  own  method,  and 
against  every  method  which  makes  the  computation  of  the  69 
weeks  fall  so  far  short  of  that  number  of  sevens  of  years.* 

If  not  to  Cyrus,  nor  to  Alexander,  nor  to  Onias,  the  appella- 
tions "the  Messiah  the  Prince"  and  "  Messiah"  can  be  applied, 
then  who  is  the  individual  thus  definitely  announced  by  the 
angel,  and  presented  to  the  prophet's  mind  ?  Where  can  we 
look  but  to  Jesus?  If  the  483  years  can  with  any  high  de- 
gree of  probability,  much  more  with  comparative  certainty, 


*  Another  interpretation  is  found  in  Eusebius'  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, B.  i.  c.  6 ;  viz.  that  it  denotes  the  abolition  of  the  sacred  unction 
among  the  Jews,  i.  e.  of  the  succession  of  the  high  priests,  and  that 
the  prophecy  was  fulfilled  about  the  time  of  our  Lord's  birth,  in  the 
arbitrary  appointment  of  priests  by  Herod  no  longer  from  ancient 
lineage,  but  from  obscure  individuals.  But  usage  is  entirely  against 
making  "anointed"  the  designation  of  an  office. 


184  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  26. 

be  shown  to  extend  from  the  issuing  of  one  of  the  edicts 
above  mentioned  to  a  period  in  the  life  of  Christ  analogous 
to  the  anointing  of  a  prince,  then  is  the  prophecy  intended 
of  him  alone. 

At  the  age  of  about  30,  he  was  anointed  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  at  his  baptism,  and  thenceforth  was  he  the  publicly  com- 
missioned Son  of  God.  Though  he  was  not  made  both  Lord 
and  Christ,  until  he  had  been  crucified  and  had  risen  from  the 
dead,  (Acts  2:  36,)  yet  was  he  the  anointed  Prince  as  David 
was  the  king  anointed  over  Israel  by  Samuel  even  before  he 
ascended  the  throne,  1  Sam.  xvi ;  and  it  was  fit  the  Son  of 
David  should  in  this  respect  be  like  his  prototype  and  ances- 
tor according  to  the  flesh.  Now  with  the  decree  in  the  20th 
year  of  Artaxerxes  as  the  date  of  the  going  forth  of  the  com- 
mandment, according  to  Calmet's  chronology  454  years  be- 
fore the  actual  birth  of  Christ,  483  years  give  us  twenty-nine 
years  as  the  age  of  our  Lord  at  his  anointing  or  baptism — 
which  corresponds  exactly  with  the  fact  mentioned  in  con- 
nexion with  his  baptism,  Luke  3:  23,  *'  And  Jesus  himself 
began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age." 

There  is  a  mode  of  reckoning  by  Hengstenberg*  on  this 
point,  worthy  of  particular  notice.  He  shows  with  a  good 
degree  of  probability  that  Artaxerxes  began  to  reign  not  in 
the  year  465  B.  C,  as  most  chronologists  suppose,  but  in 
474  B.  C.  Deduct  19  from  this  as  coinciding  with  the  20th 
year  of  his  reign  when  Nehemiah  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  and 
it  gives  455  B.  C.  This  last  date  coincides  with  the  year 
from  the  foundation  of  Rome  299.     Add  483  to  this,  and  it 

*  See  his  Christology,  Dr.  Keith's  Translation,  Vol.  II.  pp.  394, 
etc.  The  reader  will  find  a  most  elaborate  dissertation  occupying 
130  octavo  pages,  on  this  vision  of  the  Seventy  Weeks — a  dissertation 
which  though  some  of  its  positions  are  untenable,  and  its  arguments 
wire-drawn  to  an  extreme,  will  richly  repay  perusal,  and  in  its  general 
results  agrees  with  the  interpretation  here  given  of  chap,  ix,  though 
differing  in  particulars  and  mode  of  discussion. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  26.  185 

gives  the  year  782  of  Rome,  which  was  the  fifteenth  year  of 
Tiberius.  On  this  very  year,  according  to  Luke  3:  1 ,  John 
began  to  baptize.  Jesus  appeared  about  six  months  after- 
ward, being  thus  much  younger  than  his  herald.  To  him  as 
"  the  Messiah  the  Prince,"  and  to  the  very  event  of  his  re- 
ceiving the  divine  unction,  the  period  of  483  years  "  from 
the  going  forth  of  the  commandment,"  just  extends. 

According  to  the  Chronology  of  Dr.  Hales,  the  decree  must 
be  that  given  to  Ezra  in  the  7th  year  of  Artaxerxes  Longima- 
nus.  He  fixes  that  period  as  457  B.  C,  and  as  he  assigns 
the  actual  birth  of  Christ  to  the  fifth  year,  or  four  entire  years, 
before  the  common  era  of  "Anno  Domini,"  it  would  reduce 
the  457  to  452  or  453  B.  C.  Deducting  this  from  483,  (the 
years  in  the  69  weeks  at  the  close  of  which  the  Messiah  the 
Prince  was  to  appear,)  and  it  gives  30  years  as  the  age  when 
Jesus  was  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  at  his  baptism. 
This  whole  subject  of  chronology  is  much  perplexed  by  the 
discrepancies  in  the  results  of  learned  men  who  have  devoted 
much  time  and  pains  to  it.  Whether  Dr.  Hales',  or  Dr. 
Hengstenberg's,  is  the  true  reckoning  may  be  matter  of  ques- 
tion. The  former  has  the  difficulty  in  it,  that  no  satisfactory 
reason  seems  to  present  itself  why  the  commandment  to  Ez- 
ra should  be  made  the  point  from  which  to  reckon,  and  that 
others  seem  before  it  in  importance.  Some  considerations  on 
these  discrepancies  are  reserved  for  the  sequel.* 

The  above  considerations  which  identify  the  Anointed 
Prince  with  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  further  confirmed  by 
the  declaration,  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off,  i.  e.  shortly  after  his 
being  anointed  he  should  come  to  a  violent  end.  And  thus 
it  was  with  Jesus.  Not  more  than  three  years  elapsed  after 
he  received  the  sacred  unction  when  he  was  "  taken  and  by 
wicked  hands  was  crucified  and  slain."     Or  the  idea  may  be 

*  See  also  the  learned  investigation  of  Prideaux  on  the   Seventy 
Weeks,  Vol.  1.  pp.  227—254. 
16* 


186  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  26. 

that  shortly  after  he  should  be  anointed,  he  should  be  cut  of 
from  the  throne^  Comp.  1  Sam.  2:  33.  1  Kings  2:  4.  9:  5. 
2  Chron.  7:  18,  Jer.  33:  17,  18,  where  the  same  word  trans- 
lated "  cut  off,"  (Dan.  ix,)  is  found  in  such  connexions  as  the 
following:  "  the  man  whom  1  shall  not  cut  off  from  mine  al- 
tar"— "there  shall  not  fail  thee  [the  same  word  translated 
cut  off]  a  man  on  the  throne  of  Israel."  Jesus  after  being 
anointed,  and  introduced  to  the  city  with  shouts  of  "  Hosan- 
na  to  the  Son  of  David,"  and  benedictions  of  "Blessed  is  the 
king  of  Israel,"  was  cut  off  suddenly  from  the  earthly  throne 
of  David,  and  with  him  perished  the  expectations  the  people 
had  been  cherishing.  Comp.  Is.  53:  8,  "He  was  cut  off  out 
of  the  land  of  the  living." 

But  not  for  himself. 

If  this  translation  is  retained,  it  reads  in  full,  But  [he 
shaU]  not  [be  cut  off]  for  himself  and  it  expresses  the  senti- 
ment that  the  Messiah  should  not  die  for  his  own  sins,  but  for 
man's — not  so  much  for  his  own  advantage,  as  for  those  who 
believing  should  have  life  through  his  name.  This  sentiment 
is  indeed  a  great  truth  explicitly  taught  in  the  Scriptures, 
but  it  is  an  objection  to  such  a  translation  here,  that  the  ori- 
ginal phraseology  as  found  elsewhere  cannot  be  so  translated 
and  is  not — for  instance,  Lev.  11:  10,  "All  that  have  not" 
is  a  similar  phrase,  and  guided  by  analogy  the  phrase  in  ques- 
tion must  be  translated.  And  shall  have  nothing.*     That  is, 

*  This  is  the  translation  given  in  the  margin  by  our  English  trans- 
lators. The  negative  particle  in  the  text  as  it  stands,  translated  "  not," 
is  the  one  more  generally  translated  no  and  nothing  ;  it  is  an  adjective^ 
or  a  noun,  not  the  adverb  corresponding  to  our  adverb  not.  Gesenius 
however  gives  the  word  as  simply  equivalent  in  many  instances  to 
not,  but  in  one  of  those  he  specifies  it  is  translated  in  our  version  no, — 
"  no  straw  given,"  Ex.  5: 16,  and  in  all  the  others  it  may  better  so  be 
translated,  or  by  the  other  word  nothing — as  in  Gen.  37:  29,  *■>■  Joseph 
was  not  in  the  pit,"  it  had  better  read,  There  was  no  Joseph  in  the 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  26.  187 

the  angel  conveys  the  idea  to  the  prophet's  mind,  that  the 
Messiah  should  not  literally  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel, 
should  not  be  literally  a  king  occupying  the  throne  which  his 
father  David  occupied.  The  angel  announced  to  Daniel  the 
fact  of  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom,  and  vi'ould  have  him  divest 
his  mind  of  those  ideas  which  the  literal  interpretation  of  the 
language  respectnig  the  fifth  kingdom  would  give,  and  which 
even  Christ's  disciples  after  his  death  so  fondly  cherished,  of 
the  restoration  of  the  kingdom  to  Israel,  Acts  1:  6.  Though 
the  Messiah  should  come,  Jerusalem  should  be  destroyed,  not 
revived;  the  material  temple  razed  to  the  ground,  not  built 
up  in  more  glory ;  the  earthly  kingdom  utterly  abolished,  not 
established.  And  this  the  angel  goes  on  to  assert  in  the 
words  following. 

And  [but]  the  people  of  the  prince  that  shall  come  shall  destroy  the 
city  and  the  sanctuary ;  and  the  end  thereof  shall  be  with  a  flood,  and 
unto  the  end  of  the  war  desolations  are  determined. 

Can  this  desolation  be,  as  Rosenmiiller  and  others  affirm, 
the  desolation  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  predicted  in  II:  31 — 
35.  8:  10—13,  and  7:  21,  25  ?  Can  "  the  war  "  be  the  war 
between  Antiochus   Epiphanes  and  the  Jews  ?     Certainly 

pit ;  and  in  Esther  7:  4,  "  The  enemy  could  not  countervail  the  king's 
damage,"  it  is  better  thus :  The  enemy  could  in  nothing  countervail 
the  king's  damage.  The  strongest  instance  in  favor  of  Gesenius'  po- 
sition is  Dan.  8:  5,  "  And  he  touched  not  the  ground,"  but  even  here 
it  accords  with  usage  to  say,  And  in  nothing  touched  he  the  ground. 
The  difference  of  meaning  is  not  great,  but  it  goes  to  show  that  in 
Hebrew  usage  the  word  translated  "  not,"  in  the  clause  in  question,  is 
never  used  as  an  adverb  to  qualify  a  verb  or  some  other  word,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  translated.  And  he  shall  not  be  cut  off  for  himself, 
Rosenmaller  gives  it  as  the  sense — He  shall  no  more  be  found  among 
the  living.  Others  make  it  elliptical,  and  translate  it,  He  shall  have 
no  helper,  or,  There  shall  be  no  deliverance  to  him.  Hengstenberg 
translates  it,  "And  is  not  to  him,"  in  the  sense  that  his  dominion 
shall  be  destroyed. 


188  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  26. 

not,  if  the  period  of  time  is  to  be  interpreted  with  any  regard 
to  precision;  for  as  that  desolation  took  place  168  B.  C, 
even  the  sixty-nine  weeks  (or  sixty-nine  and  a  half,  See  next 
verse)  would  carry  us  back  to  655  B.  C,  fifty-six  years  earlier 
than  the  date  which  RosenmiJller  assumes  as  the  going  forth 
of  the  commandment,  Jer.  xxix.  The  sixty-nine  and  a  half 
weeks  dating  from  that  commandment  about  598  B.  C,  would 
reach  to  111  B.  C,  fifty-three  years  after  Antiochus'  death. 
If  not  the  desolation  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  then  it  must 
be  that  by  Titus  Vespasian,  whose  people,  the  Roman  armies, 
destroyed  the  city  A.  D.  70,  and  burned  the  temple  with  fire 
though  Vespasian  had  issued  his  prohibition  of  the  deed,  and 
afterwards  made  most  strenuous  efforts  to  quench  the  flames. 
The  time  when  this  deed  should  be  done  is  not  limited  to 
the  sixty-nine  or  seventy  weeks ;  the  scope  of  the  prophecy 
is  only  that  it  shall  take  place  after  their  expiration — after 
the  Messiah  should  be  cut  off;  and  it  did  thus  take  place  in 
less  than  forty  years  after  he  was  cut  off.  The  account  which 
Josephus  gives  of  the  calamities  of  that  period  is  a  most  won- 
derful fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  See  his  history  of  the  Wars 
of  the  Jews,  Bks.  v. — vii.  Disease,  famine,  and  slaughter 
followed  in  fearful  succession  among  the  multitudes  who  had 
collected  together  in  the  city  from  all  quarters  and  were  cele- 
brating the  passover  at  the  time  the  siege  commenced.  Eleven 
hundred  thousand  perished,  and  ninety-seven  thousand*  were 
made  captives,  of  whom  hundreds  were  put  to  the  tortures  of 
the  ci'oss.  And  so  complete  and  terrible  was  the  devastation, 
that  one  passing  by  would  have  supposed  the  place  had  never 
been  inhabited.  Thus  was  the  end  of  the  sanctuary  and  city  as 
with  a  flood,  (though  the  suffix  pronoun  translated  "thereof," 
i.  e.  of  it,  is  in  the  singular  number,  it  may  by  usage  refer  to 
two  antecedents  which  are  each  in  the  singular  number,)  and 
wave  after  wave  of  desolation  rolled  over  that  devoted  land 
and  people  unto  the  end  of  the  war.     Confirmatory  of  this 

*  Probably  these  numbers  are  somewhat  exaggerated. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  27.  189 

application  to  the  Roman  prince  Titus  Vespasian,  is  the 
manner  in  which  he  is  here  introduced.  It  is  just  similar  to 
11:  18,  "  A  prince  for  his  own  behalf,"  etc.,  and  again  11: 
30,  *'  The  ships  of  Chittim  shall  come  against  him."  The 
word  "  prince,"  is  the  same  in  v.  26  as  in  v.  25;  but  what  is 
said  of  each  sufficiently  distinguishes  them. 

Verse  27. 

And  he  shall  confirm  the  covenant  with  many  for  one  week. 

The  Messiah  is  the  principal  antecedent,  to  w^hich  the  word 
"  he  "  must  refer,  as  indeed  almost  all  acknowledge,  and  its 
remoteness  from  the  personal  pronoun  is  in  accordance  with 
usage  in  manifold  places.  Rosenmiiller,  (Comm.  pp.  3C9, 
323,)  who  applies  the  prophecy  to  Antiochus,  considers  it  as 
fulfilled  in  his  having  been  indirectly  the  means  of  attaching 
the  Jews  more  firmly  to  their  religion,  Cornp.  11:  32 — 35". 
Others  (quoted  by  Rosenmiiller  p.  324,)  apply  it  to  the  un- 
derstanding Antiochus  had  with  apostate  Jews,  Comp.  11: 
30,  32.  To  the  latter,  Rosenmiiller  well  objects  that  usage 
is  wholly  against  it ;  for  the  word  translated  "  covenant," 
throughout  Daniel  means  the  covenant  of  God  with  his  peo- 
ple.* To  Rosenmuller's  application  the  objection  is  equally 
valid  that  it  is  against  usage  ;  for  such  a  sentence  can  only 
mean  that  the  prince  alluded  to  directly  established  the  cove- 
nant of  God  with  his  people,  and  compared  with  what  is  said 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  that  he  should  "  have  indignation 
against  the  holy  covenant,"  affords  the  most  conclusive  argu- 
ment that  the  prophecy  cannot  apply  to  Antiochus  and  his 
times.  It  applies  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  alone,  the  Media- 
tor of  the  new  covenant — "  the  new  covenant,"  mentioned  by 
Jer.  31:  31 — 34  and  illustrated  in  Heb.  viii. — the  new  cove- 
nant as  affirmed  by  our  Lord  himself — "  This  cup  is  the  new 
testament  in  my  blood."     He  confirmed  the  covenant  with 

*  See  Interpretation,  p.  33. 


190  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  27. 

many  [Heb.  the  many],  by  granting  to  those  who  believed  on 
him  the  privilege  and  povi^er  to  be  called  the  sorjs  of  God  ; 
by  fulfilling  the  rich  promises  of  God  ;  by  establishing  a  more 
spiritual  religion  in*  the  heart;  by  working  wonderful  mira- 
cles and  shedding  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  a  work, 
which  commencing  with  his  public  ministry  at  the  close  of 
the  sixty-nine  weeks,  continued  after  his  resurrection  during 
the  forty  days  lie  showed  himself  alive  to  his  disciples,  and 
reached  beyond  the  Pentecost  as  far  as  the  time  when  the  be- 
lievers were  dispersed  from  Jerusalem  to  found  churches  in 
other  cities,  "  and  a  great  number  believed  and  turned  unto 
the  Lord."  This  period  does  not  more  than  carry  us  through 
the  last  week  of  the  seventy  ;  and  it  contains  events  adequately 
fulfilling  the  declaration  in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse.  It 
brings  us  up  to  the  time  when  the  covenant  having  been  con- 
firmed among  God's  people  the  Jews,  was  afterwards  extend- 
ed also  to  the  Gentiles. 

And  in  the  midst  of  the  week  he  shall  cause  the  sacrifice  and  the 
oblation  to  cease. 

The  words  midst  and  week  having  the  article  in  the  origi- 
nal, by  connection  manifestly  refer  to  the  same  "  one  week  " 
previously  mentioned.  The  word  the  midst,  is  in  the  origi- 
nal the  half — a  word  which  in  the  Hebrew,  as  we  have  seen, 
and  indeed  in  every  language,  often  denotes  not  an  ciart  half. 
See  Interpretation,  p.  128.  The  sense  may  simply  be  that  on 
the  first  half  portion  of  the  week  the  event  herein  predicted 
should  take  place.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  contains  the 
true  explanation,  chap.  10:  8 — 10,  "  When  he  said,  sacrifice 
and  offering  and  burnt-oflferings  and  oflfering  for  sin  thou 
wouldest  not,  neither  hadst  pleasure  therein,  which  are  offer- 
ed by  the  law ;  Then  said  he,  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O 
God: — he  taketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the 
second.  By  the  which  wilt  we  are  sanctified  through  the  of- 
fering of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all."     This  too 


INTERPRETATION  OV  DANIEL  9:  27.  191 

was  signified  at  the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  cross,  by  the  rend- 
ing asunder  of  the  vail  of  the  temple.  And  well  has  Calvin 
said,  "the  rending  of  the  vail,  was  not  only  an  abrogation  of 
the  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies,  but  an  opening  of  the  hea- 
vens as  thouo-h  God  now  invited  the  members  of  his  Son  to 

o 

himself  In  the  meantime  the  Jews  were  admonished  that 
an  end  had  now  come  to  external  sacrifices  ;  that  there  would 
now  be  no  more  occasion  for  the  service  of  the  priests,  and 
that  the  very  image  of  the  shadows  having  been  now  com- 
pleted, the  legal  types  were  converted  into  spiritual  substance," 
Quoted  in  Hengstenberg,  p.  359, 

And  for  the  overspreading  ol  abominations  he  shall  make  it  deso- 
late [^marginal  readings  And  upon  the  battlements  shall  be  the  idols 
of  the  desolator.] 

If  the  reading-of  the  text  is  retained,  it  means  either  that 
the  overspreading  of  abominations  hy  tlie  wicked  Jcivs  was 
the  cause  why  the  city  and  sanctuary  were  made  desolate,  or 
that  the  city  and  sanctuary  were  desolated,  in  order  to  be 
overspread  with  abominations  by  the  Gentiles.  The  transla- 
tion in  the  text,  however,  has  no  sanction  whatever  from  He- 
brew usage  in  any  other  part  of  the  Bible,  and  it  is  not  to  be 
retained  unless  the  context  absolutely  demands  it — which  it 
does  not.  Better  the  translation  in  the  margin,  and  it  is 
substantially  that  which  will  now  be  given.  The  clause  may 
literally  read,  Upon  the  wing  [of  the  temple]  shall  be  the 
abominations  that  make  desolate.  The  word  wi?ig  is  the  word 
above  translated  "  overspreading  "  and  "  battlements."  The 
phrase  translated  in  the  text,  "  abominations  he  shall  make 
it  desolate,"  is  like  11:  31,  "the  abomination  that  maketh 
desolate,"  only  abomination  in  the  latter  is  in  the  singidar 
number,  and  in  the  former  it  is  in  the  plural.  The  word 
translated  "  that  maketh  desolate"  and  "he  shall  make  it 
desolate,"  is  the  same  in  both  cases,  and  is  in  form  a  partici- 
ple or  participial. 


192  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  27. 

As  to  the  word  loing,  its  construction  in  the  sentence  is 
peculiar  and  makes  all  the  difficulty.  It  seems  to  govern  the 
following  word  abominations  in  the  genitive  Case ;  hence  the 
translation  in  the  text,  "overspreading  of  abominations." 
But  though  the  construction  is  peculiar,  it  is  like  that  of  many 
Hebrew  words  which  have  a  noun  after  them  implied,  not  ex- 
pressed, and  is  here  to  be  taken  as  the  wing  of  the  temple,  as 
in  Ps.  74:  19,  where  our  translators  have  supplied  the  words 
of  the  wicked,  after  "multitude,"  which  has  precisely  the 
same  grammatical  form  with  wing.  Compare  the  expression 
"pinnacle  [literally  wing]  of  the  temple,"  Matt.  4:  5. 

As  to  the  participle  singular  united  to  a  plural  noun,  the 
word  "  abominations"  seems  to  be  what  is  called  the  plural 
of  excellence,  which  commonly  takes  a  participle  or  adjective 
in  the  singular.  As  for  instance  in  Is.  19:  4,  "  a  cruel  lord" 
is  exactly  the  same  sort  of  phrase  with  abominations  that  make 
desolate,  only  the  latter  has  a  participle  or  participial  instead 
of  an  adjective — which  makes  no  difference  in  principle.  Or 
if  it  be  not  a  plural  of  excellence,  the  construction  which  unites 
a  common  plural  with  a  participle  or  participial  in  the  singu- 
lar is  found  also  in  other  places  as  in  Gen.  27:  29,  "  Cursed 
be  every  one  thatcurseth  thee,"  literally.  Cursed  be  the  cursers 
of  thee.* 

*  There  is  no  objection  to  the  translation  abominations  of  the  deso- 
lator,  except  that  the  corresponding  phrase  in  Matt.  24:  15,  reads 
abomination  of  desolation,  i.  e.  thatmaketh  desolate;  and  the  Hebrew 
Dan.  9:  27  may  so  read  in  harmony  with  usage  and  the  laws  of  gram- 
mar. Gesenius  in  his  lexicon  gives  the  translation  desolator  both  in 
9:  27  and  11:  31 ;  but  supports  it  by  no  other  authority,  and  in  the 
very  paragraph  with  the  signification  destroyer,  he  classes  it  with  ano- 
ther which  allows  the  word  in  Dan.  9:  27  to  be  joined  with  abomina- 
tions in  the  sense  of  making  desolate,  i.  e.  desolating  abominations, 
Hengstenberg  gives  the  interpretation,  "  And  over  the  summit  of 
abomination  comes  the  destroyer,"  taking  the  word  "  abomination" 
in  the  sense  of  the  temple  desecrated  by  the  abominations  of  the  Jews, 
and  the  whole  phrase  as  asserting  that  the  enemy  mastered  the  high- 
est battlements  of  the  temple,  and  when  this  was  done  virtually  pos- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9*.  27.  193 

The  question  arises,  Was  there  anything  in  the  history  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  which  corresponded  to  this  pro- 
phecy, "On  the  wing  of  the  temple  shall  be  the  abominations 
that  make  desolate  ?"  It  is  related  by  Josephus  that  the 
Roman  soldiers  having  brought  their  battering-rams  to  the 
embankments  they  had  raised  over  against  the  western  edi- 
fice of  the  inner  temple,  some  of  them  by  means  of  ladders  as- 
cended the  cloisters  round  the  temple  with  the  Roman  stan- 
dards in  their  hands,  though  they  were  met  and  driven  back 
with  great  havoc  by  the  Jews.  They  then  set  fire  to  the 
gates.  Early  the  next  day,  Titus  with  his  whole  army  en- 
camped round  about  the  holy  house.  The  fire  was  now  con- 
suming the  inner  court  of  the  temple,  from  which  a  soldier 
communicated  it  with  his  own  hands  to  a  golden  window 
leading  to  the  rooms  round  about  the  holy  house,  and  the  fire 
raged  now  still  more  widely.  Another  soldier  shortly  set  fire 
to  the  gate,  and  the  fire  then  burst  out  from  within  the  holy 
house,  and  raged  until  nothing  but  the  walls  were  left  stand- 

sessed  the  whole.  But  his  interpretation  better  shows  his  ingenuity 
than  illustrates  the  text,  and  has  more  foundation  in  his  own  fancy 
than  in  usage,  and  he  tries  in  vain  satisfactorily  to  harmonize  it  with 
the  words  of  Christ.  He  makes  it  an  objection  that  Christ  is  made  to 
designate  a  moment  for  flight  precisely  when  it  is  too  late.  But  it  is 
to  be  observed  that  Christ  does  not  give  the  signal  for  escape  from  Je- 
rusalew.  only,  but  from  Judea.  So  difficult  was  it  for  the  Jews  to  be- 
lieve the  temple  would  be  destroyed,  that  even  those  would  linger 
around  the  city  who  were  not  shut  up  in  it,  and  our  Savior  according- 
ly warned  his  disciples  not  to  linger  but  to  flee  out  of  Judea  entirely  ; 
for  if  they  remained  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  city  they  would  perish. 
The  sign  for  them  that  the  desolation  of  the  city  vas  near,  was  when 
the  Roman  armies  should  compass  it,  and  history  records  the  fact  that 
the  disciples  remained  in  the  city  until  that  time,  and  then  had  an  op- 
portunity to  escape  on  a  transient  retiring  of  the  Roman  forces.  The 
sign  for  them  to  flee  entirely  out  of  Judea,  was  when  they  should  see 
the  abomination  of  desolation  stand  in  the  holy  place.  This  they  could 
behold  from  the  Mount  of  Olives,  even  after  they  had  escaped  from  the 
city  ;  and  doubtless  they  lingered  until  they  saw  it. 

17 


194  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  27. 

ing.  When  the  holy  house  was  burnt,  and  all  the  buildings 
round  about  it,  the  Romans  brought  their  standards  to  the 
temple,  and  set  them  over  its  eastern  gate ;  and  there  offered 
sacrifices  to  them.  Here  were  the  desolating  abominations, 
those  idol-standards  of  eagles  by  which  the  Romans  effected 
their  desolations — here  they  stood  on  or  near  the  wing  of  the 
temple — here  were  idolatrous  sacrifices  offered  up,  as  Anti- 
ochus  formerly  offered  up  the  sacrifice  of  swine's  flesh,  (Heng- 
stenberg  says  the  story  about  his  setting  up  the  statue  of  Jupi- 
ter is  a  fiction,  Christology,  p.  371,)  which  were  the  sign  and 
seal  that  thenceforth  the  temple  and  city  should  be  desolate. 

Even  until  the  consummation,  and  tliat  determined  shall  be  poured 
upon  the  desolate. 

For  desolate  some  read  desolator,  and  thus  it  is  in  the  mar- 
gin of  the  English  version.  But  the  same  grammatical  form 
(which  is  a  participle  of  another  form  of  the  same  verb  in  the 
phrase  abominations  that  make  desolate)  is  found  in  vs.  18, 
26  of  this  same  chapter  where  it  must  be  taken  in  the  passive 
sense  of  being  desolated,  and  this  sense  is  agreeable  to  usage. 
The  meaning  is  that  Jerusalem  should  lie  desolate  and  her 
sanctuary  remain  polluted  until  what  was  determined  in  the 
counsels  of  God  should  be  poured  upon  her — a  prophecy  how 
wonderfully  fulfilled,  and  its  truth  attested  more  and  more 
strongly  as  the  eighteen  hundred  years  since  its  desolation 
have  successively  passed  away  ! 

Having  thus  gone  through  with  the  particulars  of  this  pro- 
phecy, a  few  additional  considerations  will  close  its  interpre- 
tation and  confirm  the  views  already  presented.  To  this 
prophecy,  if  to  any  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  does  our  Savior 
refer.  Matt.  24:  15.  Mark  13:  14.  Luke  21:  20,— "When  ye 
therefore  shall  seethe  abomination  of  desolation  spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet  stand  in  the  holy  place,  (whoso  readeth 
let  him  understand  :)  then  let  them  which  be  in  Judea  flee 
into  the  mountains."     In  Mark  it  reads—"  standing  where 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  27.  195 

it  ought  not,"  the  phrase  "  holy  place  "  given  by  Matthew 
having  been  probably  uttered  by  our  Savior  in  connection 
with  "standing  where  it  ought  not."  In  Luke  it  reads, 
*'  And  when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies, 
then  know  that  the  desolation  thereof  is  nigh.  Then  let 
them  which  be  in  Judea  flee  to  the  mountains ;  and  let  them 
which  are  in  the  midst  of  it  depart  out ;  and  let  not  them  that 
are  in  the  countries  enter  thereinto."  The  words  given  by 
Luke  do  not  seem  so  much  explanatory  of  the  phrase  "  abomi- 
nation of  desolation  "  as  an  accession  to  the  meaning,  and 
were  probably  uttered  by  our  Lord  before  that  phrase,  the 
entire  observation  being  as  follows — "  When  ye  shall  see  Je- 
rusalem compassed  with  armies,  and  the  abomination  of  des- 
olation spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet  stand  in  the  holy 
place,  where  it  ought  not,  then  know  that  the  desolation 
thereof  is  nigh ;  then  let  them  which  be  in  Judea  flee  to  the 
mountains."  As  we  have  seen,  there  the  idol-standards  of 
eagles  stood  in  the  holy  place,  where  they  ought  not,  and  it 
was  not  one  but  many  abominations,  literally  answering  to 
the  plural  form  of  the  word  as  found  in  v.  27.  When  these 
things  should  be  seen,  then  let  none  look  for  safety  anywhere 
in  Judea,  anywhere  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  but  flee  to 
the  distant  mountains.  And  history  records  the  fact  that  the 
disciples  fled  beyond  Jordan  out  of  Judea  to  Pella,  when  Je- 
rusalem was  besieged  and  destroyed.  Now  do  these  words 
of  our  Savior  admit  of  any  explanation  on  the  principle  of  ac- 
commodation  1  Is  it  not  a  direct  reference  to  a  veritable  pro- 
phecy of  the  final  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ?  How  can  it 
consistently  be  construed  otherwise  ?  And  then  just  after 
his  reference  to  the  prophecy  there  is  his  language  Luke  21: 
22 — 24,  "  For  these  be  the  days  of  vengeance,  that  all  things 
which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled  ....  and  Jerusalem  shall 
be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles  until  the  times  of  the  Gen- 
tiles be  fulfilled" — until  what  was  appointed  to  be  poured  up- 
on her  by  the  hands  of  the  Gentiles  should  be  all  fulfilled  in 


196  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  27. 

the  set  time  allotted  for  their  destructive  work.  Now  if  the 
context  in  Daniel  absolutely  forbade  the  application  to  Jeru- 
salem ;  if  such  an  application  could  be  made  only  by  violating 
the  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  we  should  indeed  be  compelled 
to  regard  our  Savior  as  arguing  on  some  erroneous  interpre- 
tation of  the  Jews,  or  as  using  the  words  of  the  prophecy  with 
such  an  application  as  he  himself  chose  to  make  at  the  time; 
but  such  an  alternative  would  seem  to  be  at  the  expense  of 
our  being  entirely  set  adrift  as  to  any  firm  persuasion  of  the 
reality  of  such  a  thing  as  prophecy.  No  such  alternative 
however  are  we  compelled  to  adopt.  Usage  sanctions  and 
the  prophecy  demands  the  general  interpretation  we  have 
given,  and  the  application  which  is  made  of  it  by  our  Lord 
himself. 

The  same  application  which  our  Savior  made  of  it,  is  also 
made  by  Josephus  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
confirmed  as  it  is  by  our  Savior,  may  well  be  relied  on — "  In 
the  very  same  manner  Daniel  also  wrote  concerning  the  Ro- 
man government,  and  that  our  country  should  be  made  deso- 
late by  them,"  Antiq.  B.  x.  ch.  11.  sec.  7;  and  (as  Rosen- 
mijller  justly  remarks,  p.  314)  to  that  desolation  no  other 
prediction  in  the  book  of  Daniel  refers  except  in  these  two 
last  verses  of  chap.  ix.  There  is  also  another  passage  in  his 
History  of  the  Wars  of  the  Jews,  B.  iv.  ch.  6.  sec.  3,  (which, 
as  Rosenm  tiller  acknowledges,  shows  that  this  application  was 
made  by  the  Jews  of  Josephus'  time,  and  he  also  says  the 
Jews  of  the  present  day  retain  it  as  the  true  one,) — "  They 
[the  Zealots]  occasioned  the  fulfilling  of  those  very  prophe- 
cies belonging  to  their  own  country  ;  for  there  was  a  certain 
ancient  oracle  of  those  men  [the  prophets]  that  the  city 
should  then  be  taken  and  the  sanctuary  burnt,  by  right  of 
war,  when  a  sedition  should  invade  the  Jews,  and  their  own 
hand  pollute  the  temple  of  God.  Now  while  these  Zealots 
did  not  disbelieve  these  predictions,  they  made  themselves 
the  instruments  of  their  accomplishment." 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9:  27.  197 

The  main  argument  insisted  on  by  Rosenmiiller  against 
the  application  of  this  prophecy  to  Christ  and  to  the  final  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  is  certainly  as  valid  against  himself. 
It  has  already  been  alluded  to  in  the  remark  quoted  from  him 
that  "it  is  altogether  incredible  that  Alexander,  who  is  men- 
tioned in  the  other  prophecies,  (2:  40.  7:  6.  8:  5,  6,  and  11: 
3,)  should  be  omitted  here  in  chapter  ninth."     So  may  it  be 
urged  that  it  is  incredible  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  which 
is  mentioned  in  all  the  other  prophecies,  chap.  viii.  excepted, 
(for  we  shall  see  that  it  is  mentioned,  and  Rosenmiiller  ad- 
mits it,  in  chap,  xii,)  should  be  omitted  here  in   chap.  ix. 
Rosenmiiller's  argument  at  length  (Commentary,  p.  318)  is, 
"  that  the  prophetic  part  of  Daniel   embracing  the  six  last 
chapters  contains /bwr  visions,  three  of  which,   the  first,  se- 
cond and  fourth  [in  chaps,  vii,  viii,  and  xi,]  denote  the  same 
things  but  in  different  ways ;  that  in  those  visions  the  revolu- 
tions of  the  reigns  of  Eastern  Asia  are  predicted  from  the 
Chaldean  reign  down  to  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
regard  being  had  particularly  to  the  aff*airs  of  the  Jews  ;  that 
the  argument  of  those  three  visions  is  the  same,   and  they 
shed  mutual  light  on  each  other ;  that  what  things  are  briefly 
explained  in  the  first,  are  next  explained  more  clearly  and 
explicitly,  and  the  fourth  is  as  it  were  the  epexegcsis  [the  in- 
terpretation added  by  the  writer]  of  the  preceding ;  that  there- 
fore we  must  conclude  that  this  vision  in  chap,  ix,  the  third 
of  the  four,  pertains  to  the  same  events  with  the  remaining 
three."     But  surely  the  argument  is  as  valid,  that  since  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah  is  mentioned  in  two  of  these  four 
visions,  viz.  in  chaps,  vii.  and  xii,  and  is  also  mentioned  chap, 
ii ;  and  since  especially  in  the  7th  chap,  one  is  seen  in  the 
vision  "  like  the  Son  of  Man,"  to  whom  the  kingdom  is  given, 
then  most  naturally  does  chap,  ix,  which  speaks  of  the  "  anoint- 
ed prince,"  refer  to^  him ;  and  there  is  no  other  one  in  all 
the  prophecies  of  Daniel  that  answers  adequately  to  this  ap- 
pellation but  he  who  in  that  first  vision  receives  the  kingdom 
17* 


198  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  9*.  27. 

from  the  Most  High.  Moreover,  we  have  seen  that  on  a  com- 
parison of  chap.  viii.  with  chap,  xi,  both  those  chapters,  in 
the  description  of  the  desecration  of  the  temple,  refer  to  the 
act  of  one  and  the  same  individual.  But  the  description  in 
chap.  ix.  is  not  parallel  to  those  two,  for  one  destroys,  the 
other  confirms  the  covenant ;  in  chaps,  viii.  and  xi,  the  peo- 
ple of  God  are  the  chief  object  of  indignation  ;  in  chap.  ix.  it 
is  the  city;  in  chap.  viii.  and  xi,  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion (singular)  is  put  where  the  daily  sacrifice  had  been  of- 
fered ;  in  chap,  ix,  the  abominations  of  desolation  (plural) 
are  put  on  or  against  the  wing  of  the  temple.  And  our  Savior, 
as  if  to  teach  his  disciples  to  discriminate  between  them,  as 
well  as  make  them  feel  the  necessity  of  the  closest  attention 
in  order  rightly  to  understand  the  prophecy,  says,  "  Whoso 
readeth  let  him  understand  !"  But  even  were  these  predic- 
tions of  desolation  given  in  exactly  the  same  language,  it  is 
the  context  which  must  decide  to  what  events  they  apply,  and 
the  context  may  demand  two  diverse  applications.  There  is 
no  such  law  as  makes  the  same  words  and  sentences  always 
mean  the  same  thing  wherever  they  are  found.  Here  in  chap. 
ix.  the  context  does  not  allow  the  application  to  the  times  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  without  assuming  again  and  again 
things  for  which  there  is  no  support  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
without  introducing  such  confusion  and  disproportion  in 
reckoning  the  70  weeks  as  must  destroy  all  respect  for  the 
good  sense,  not  to  insist  on  the  inspiration  of  the  writer. 

The  true  view  would  seem  to  be  not  that  chap.  ix.  is  given 
to  run  parallel  with  the  other  three  visions  as  far  as  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  while  two  of  those  three  visions  look  beyond  that 
period,  but  that  it  is  a  supplement  to  chap.  viii.  Chap, 
vii.  predicts  the  reign  of  the  Messiah ;  chap.  ii.  (which  is  as 
truly  a  vision  of  Daniel  as  the  other  four  in  the  mode  in  which 
the  dream  of  the  king  of  Babylon  was  communicated  to  him) 
predicts  the  same  reign;  chap,  xii,  which  is  a  continuation 
of  chap,  xi,  predicts  the  same  reign,  but  chap.  viii.  omits  it. 


INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  9:  27.  199 

Why  may  not  this  then  most  naturally  be  the  supplement  to 
chap,  viii,  and  thus  be  parallel  with  the  others,  only  more 
explicit  to  a  wonderful  degree  1 

It  is  possible  that  some  may  not  feel  entire  certainty  in  re- 
spect to  the  interpretation  that  has  been  given  of  the  70, 
weeks,  or  the  69  weeks  as  extending  precisely  down  to  the 
baptism  of  Jesus,  and  his  first  setting  forth  on  his  great  work 
— an  event  which  answers  to  the  prediction  in  Daniel,  and 
which  is  moreover  described  so  remarkably  by  an  apostle — 
"  How  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  power,"  Acts  10:  38.  That  there  were  490  years, 
as  exactly  as  duration  is  generally  spoken  of  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, though  not  necessarily  to  the  precise  day,  or  hour, 
there  has  been  presented,  it  is  hoped,  sufficient  ground  for 
believing.  But  even  if  at  this  remote  day,  and  in  the  confu- 
sion and  discrepancy  of  all  data  given  by  chronologists,  we 
cannot  come  with  absolute  certainty  to  the  exact  year  of  the 
completion  of  the  69  or  70  weeks  of  years,  there  is  as  much 
certainty,  nevertheless,  for  that  date,  as  for  any  date  up  to 
the  death  of  Christ.  And  we  need  not  the  assurance  of  ab- 
solute demonstration,  but  only  grounds  for  believing  that  at 
or  near  the  expiration  of  the  69  weeks  of  years,  the  Prince  of 
Peace  was  anointed  for  his  great  work ;  that  at  or  near  the 
expiration  of  490  years,  calculated  as  men  reckon  time,  the 
gospel  was  established,  and  the  most  holy  reign  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  through  Christ  Jesus  set  up  and  spread  far 
and  wide,  and  shortly  after  was  Jerusalem  made  desolate. 

For  such  events  about  the  time  of  our  Lord,  were  multi- 
tudes looking.  Where  but  from  these  prophecies  of  Daniel, 
the  prophecy  of  the  70  weeks  and  the  prophecy  of  the  regular 
succession  of  four  great  kingdoms,  known  to  have  taken  place 
in  the  order  predicted ;  where  but  from  these  could  the  idea 
have  been  derived  which  took  so  deep  hold  of  the  Je.ws,  and 
as  we  learn  from  even  heathen  historians  prevailed  through- 
out the  East  about  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  of  the  virgin 


•200  INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  9:  27. 

Mary,  that  a  king  should  then  arise  out  of  Judea  and  attain 
to  universal  empire  1  Where  but  from  these  prophecies  of 
Daniel  could  the  impression  have  been  obtained  among  the 
true  Israelites  respecting  one  for  whom  they  waited  as  their 
Messiah  ?  Does  any  one  but  Daniel  give  the  direct  clew  to 
the  time  ?  And  although  the  prophecy  in  chap.  ix.  is  not 
found  in  the  New  Testament  applied  to  events  taking  place 
about  the  time  of  Christ  except  by  our  Lord  himself,  and  is 
not  applied  by  the  apostles  themselves  to  Christ  in  the  writings 
they  have  left,  yet  who  can  doubt  that  they  so  applied  it  in 
their  teachings  ?  In  no  direct  and  formal  manner  is  even  the 
prophecy  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  chap,  ii,  and  that  in 
chap,  vii,  appealed  to  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  who  doubts 
that  the  New  Testament  writers  alluded  to  those  very  pro- 
phecies in  the  use  of  the  phrases  "  kingdom  of  heaven"  and 
"  kingdom  of  God  ?"  And  who  can  doubt  that  this  prophe- 
cy of  Daniel  is  also  equally  implied,  though  not  formally 
mentioned,  in  those  places  of  the  New  Testament  where 
"  the  Messiah,"  "  the  Christ,"  and  "the  kingdom  of  Christ," 
are  spoken  of?  Jesus  was  therefore  the  Christ  of  Daniel. 
Only  to  him  as  the  Messiah  did  this  prophecy  point,  and  with 
it  concurred  the  voice  of  the  true  "people  the  saints."  It 
was  he  concerning  whom  the  woman  of  Samaria  had  learned, 
using  the  very  same  indefinite  form  of  the  word  employed  in 
Dan.  9:  25,  26,  "  I  know  that  Messias  cometh,  (which  is 
called  Christ,)  when  he  is  come  he  will  tell  us  all  things." 
It  was  he  of  whom  Andrew  spake  to  Nathaniel,  "  We  have 
found  the  Messias."  It  was  he  to  whom  Martha  confessed, 
"  Yea,  Lord :  I  believe  that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  which  should  come  into  the  world."  It  was  he  on 
whose  Cross  was  written  in  three  languages  which  were  a 
fit  symbol  of  the  many  to  be  "  redeemed  by  his  blood  out  of 
every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation,"  "  Jesus 
OF  Nazareth,  the  king  of  the  Jews."  It  was  he  of  whom 
his  apostles  preached,  after  his  death  and  resurrection,  "  Him 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  1. 


201 


hath  God  exalted  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a 
Savior,  for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of 
sins,"  and  "  the  propitiation  not  for"  the  Jews'  "  sins  only,  but 
also  for  the  sins  of  tlie  whole  world."  It  was  he,  in  fine, 
who  "  though  he  bear  record  of  himself,  yet  was  his  record 
true,"  and  to  the  humble  Samaritan  woman's  remark,  "  I 
know  that  Messias  cometh,"  answered,  "  I  that  speak  unto 

THEE  AM  HE."* 


SECTION  VI. 


UiTIVEUSITY, 


INTERPRETATIOIN  OF  CHAPTER  XII. 


CONCLUSION. 

This  chapter  continues  the  vision  in  chaps,  x,  xi,  and  closes 
the  series  of  the  visions  of  the  prophet.  It  has  been  reserved 
for  this  place  because  it  was  judged  to  need  the  collected  light 
of  the  others,  at  least  for  the  full  understanding  of  some  parts 
of  it,  (See  Interpr.  p.  63.)  For  while  the  vision,  as  all  ac- 
knowledge, is  the  expansion  of  those  which  precede  it,  it 
yet  has  this  peculiarity — that  it  only  touches  briefly  what  has 
before  been  enlarged  upon,  and  enlarges  to  a  great  extent  on 
what  the  others  had  touched  but  briefly.  The  reader,  with 
an  eye  that  has  looked  over  the  wide  field  of  the  prophet's 
visions,  will  now  place  himself  at  the  point  of  view,  (11:  40 — 
45,  Interpr.  pp.  57 — 62,)  where  the  interpretation  of  the  vision 
recorded  in  chaps,  x,  xi,  xii,  was  suspended. 

1  And  at  that  time  shall  Michael  stand  up,  the  great  prince  which 
standeth  for  the  children  of  thy  people  :  and  there  shall  be  a  time 
of  trouble,  such  as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation  even  to  that 
same  time  :  and  at  that  time  thy  people  shall  be  delivered,  every 
one  that  shall  be  found  written  in  the  book. 

*  John  4:  25,  26.  1:  41.  11:  27.  19:  19.  Acts  5:  31.  1  John  2:  2. 


202  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  1. 

Michael  the  great  prince,  is  the  same  person  mentioned  in 
the  introduction  of  the  vision,  as  "  Michael  one  of  the  chief 
princes,"  and  "  Michael  your  prince,"  10:  13,  21.  It  was 
Michael  the  tutelar  angel  to  the  Jewish  nation,  (Interpr.  p. 
14,  Comp.  Jude  v.  9.)  His  standing  up,  denotes  the  aid 
which  was  to  be  extended  to  the  prophet's  countrymen  from 
on  high.  And  the  Bible  affords  ground  for  believing,  that 
the  aid  of  angels  as  ministering  spirits  is  actually  extended  to 
men,  Comp.  Ps.  103:  20.  Heb.  1:  14.  Luke  1:  19.  22:  43. 

The  time  of  trouble  was  the  period  of  persecution  and 
struggle,  which  commenced  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  particularly  at  the  time  of  his  last  expedition  into 
Egypt,  11:  40—45,  comp.  with  11:  30—34. 

Up  to  the  commencement  of  that  period,  from  the  time  of 
the  complete  restoration  of  Jerusalem  after  the  Captivity,  the 
Jews,  though  tributary  to  foreign  monarchs,  were  permitted 
to  live  under  the  immediate  government  of  individuals  chosen 
from  among  themselves,  and  they  enjoyed  a  tranquillity  but 
seldom  interrupted.  Wars  raged  around  them,  but  the  flames 
did  not  kindle  on  them ;  their  land  was  entirely  exempt  down 
to  the  times  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  198  B.  C.  In  transfer- 
r  ing  their  allegiance  to  him  from  the  king  of  Egypt,  they  took 
a  heavy  burden,  and  involved  themselves  in  serious  conse- 
quences, See  on  11:  14,  16,  20.  And  in  the  desecration  of 
their  temple  by  his  son  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  in  the  per- 
secutions immediately  ensuing,  arose  their  saddest  calamities. 
N  ot  even  by  their  Assyrian  conqueror,  who  carried  the  na- 
t  ion  into  captivity  for  seventy  years,  were  they  treated  with 
such  barbarity ;  nor  was  their  temple  so  polluted,  and  such 
compulsory  measures  employed  to  make  them  abandon  the 
religion  of  their  country,  and  adopt  paganism.  It  was  a  time 
of  trouble,  which,  so  long  as  it  lasted,  had  not  a  parallel  in 
the  history  of  nations. 

On  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  Antiochus  Eupator 
his  son,  a  youth  of  only  nine  years  of  age,  succeeded  to  the 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   1.  203 

Syrian  throne ;  and  shortly  afterward,  another  and  successful 
claimant  appeared,  Demetrius,  whom  his  father  Seleucus 
Philopator,  the  predecessor  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  placed 
at  Rome  as  hostage  instead  of  Antiochus  recalled.  See  on 
11:  21.  Two  armies  were  sent  by  the  young  king,  and 
two  by  Demetrius,  against  Judas,  in  quick  succession,  until 
his  band,  then  numbering  but  3000,  exhausted  and  discour- 
aged, began  to  fall  off  to  their  homes,  and  only  800  remained 
with  him  against  the  advancing  army  of  20,000,  the  strongest 
and  best  disciplined  of  the  forces  of  Syria.  Judas  was  ear- 
nestly advised  to  retreat,  and  return  with  recruited  and  more 
numerous  forces.  But  he  replied,  "  God  forbid  that  I  should 
do  this  thing,  and  flee  away  from  them  ;  if  our  time  be  come, 
let  us  die  manfully  for  our  brethren,  and  let  us  not  stain  our 
honor."  The  enemy  came  on.  Judas  and  his  few  men  fell 
impetuously  on  the  right  wing,  where  the  strength  of  the  ar- 
my was,  and  routed  it.  But  he  was  enclosed  by  the  left  wing, 
and  finally  fell,  overpowered  by  numbers,  after  long  resist- 
ance and  terrible  slaughter  on  both  sides,  161  B.  C.  "  The 
remnant"  of  his  band  "fled."  He  deserved  the  eulogy  ut- 
tered on  the  occasion  of  his  death,  "  How  is  the  valiant  man 
fallen,  that  delivered  Israel!"  1  Mace,  chap  ix.  "He  left 
behind  him  a  glorious  memorial  by  gaining  freedom  for  his 
nation,"  (Josephus  Antiq.  XH.  chap,  xi.) 

On  the  death  of  Judas,  their  enemies  came  forward  more 
boldly,  and  distressed  the  Jews  on  every  side.  The  friends 
and  associates  of  Judas  were  sought  out  by  apostate  Jews, 
and  delivered  up  to  a  miserable  death.  And  it  is  remarked 
both  by  Josephus  and  the  historian  of  the  Maccabees,  that 
the  calamities  of  the  times,  with  famine  added,  were  great- 
er than  they  had  experienced  since  their  return  out  of  Baby- 
lon, and  the  nation  seemed  again  on  the  verge  of  ruin,  An- 
tiq. xiii.  c.  1,  1  Mace.  9:  27. 

The  place  of  Judas  was  however  supplied  by  Jonathan, 
who,  though  compelled  to  flee  to  the  thickets  on  the  banks  of 


204  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   1. 

the  Jordan,  yet  so  followed  up  the  victories  of  his  brother, 
and  so  harrassed  the  Syrian  army,  that  Demetrius  was  glad, 
in  about  a  year  from  the  death  of  Judas,  to  grant  a  truce  to  the 
Jews.  It  continued  about  two  years,  when  it  was  interrup- 
ted for  a  season,  but  again  renewed.  Meantime  there  ap- 
peared, 153  B.  C  another  claimant  for  the  Syrian  throne, 
Alexander  Balas,  supported  by  the  Romans,  and  after  four 
years  he  obtained  it.  Both  Demetrius  and  Alexander  court- 
ed Jonathan's  favor.  From  the  former  he  received  the  ap- 
pointment of  king's  general  in  Judea,  with  authority  to  raise 
forces,  to  repair  Jerusalem,  to  receive  back  hostages  that 
had  been  required,  and  rebuild  the  wall  around  the  mountain 
of  the  temple,  which  Antiochus  Eupator,  in  violation  of  his 
treaty  at  the  raising  of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  had  comman- 
ded to  be  pulled  down.  From  Alexander  he  received  the 
commission  of  high  priest,  with  a  purple  robe  and  crown  of 
gold,  worn  only  by  princes.  He  immediately  entered  on  the 
duties  of  his  several  commissions ;  and  his  growing  power 
was  fast  rallying  his  nation,  and  disbanding  all  the  Syrian 
garrisons,  and  expelling  the  wicked,  when  he  was  treacher- 
ously murdered  between  the  contending  Syrian  factions,  B. 
C.  144.  To  him  succeeded  his  brother  Simon,  with  the  dig- 
nity of  prince  and  high  priest,  under  whom  the  Jews,  deliv- 
ered from  the  Syrian  yoke,  and  no  more  compelled  to  pay  tri- 
bute, became  once  more  an  independent  nation,  143  B.  C. 

Here  then  would  seem  to  be  a  fulfilment,  at  least  in  part, 
of  the  promise  of  deliverance  given  in  12:  1.  The  prophet's 
people  were  delivered  from  a  subjection  to  foreign  power, 
which,  commencing  with  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  by  Ne- 
buchadnezzar in  the  year  606  B.  C,  and  interrupted  by  only 
two  short  intervals  of  unsuccessful  revolt  from  him,  had  contin- 
ued through  a  period  of  463  years.  It  was  a  deliverance  ef- 
fected for  every  one  found  written  in  the  book,  i.  e.  every  faith- 
ful one  for  whom  it  was  surely  purposed  ;  (Comp.  "  scripture 
of  truth,"  Interpr.  p.  15;)  every  one  who  should  not  perish 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   1.  205 

in  those  struggles ;  every  faithful  one  who,  having  fallen  into 
divers  trials,  and  been  spared  through  them,  should  be  made 
white  by  them,  11:  35.  Compare  also  the  language  in  Is.  4: 
3,  *'  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  he  that  is  left  in  Zion,  and 
he  that  remaineth  in  Jerusalem,  shall  be  called  holy,  even 
every  one  that  is  written  among  the  living  in  Jerusalem." 
Also  Exod.  32:  32,  33 — "  Yet  now,  if  thou  wilt,  forgive  their 
sin  :  and  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book  which 
thou  hast  written.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Whoso- 
ever hath  sinned  against  me,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book." 
But  notwithstanding  all  this,  did  such  a  deliverance  then 
take  place,  that  the  true  Israelite  would  not  look  for  some- 
thing further  still,  as  its  higher  and  not  remote  consumma- 
tion? would  not  even  the  language  "little  help,"  11:  34,  ap- 
plied to  the  deliverance  begun  by  Mattathias  and  his  sons, 
lead  to  the  expectation  of  something  more  1  Only  40  years 
passed  away,  and  civil  commotions  began  to  arise,  which  in 
the  reign  of  Alexander  Janneus  cost  the  lives  of  more  than 
50,000  of  the  Jews.  On  the  death  of  Alexander,  and  afterwards 
of  his  queen,  the  succession  was  disputed  between  her  sons 
Hyrcanus  and  Aristobulus,  until  finally  the  Roman  general 
Pompey  then  in  the  neighborhood,  was  introduced  as  umpire. 
His  decision,  which  was  in  favor  of  the  weaker  Hyrcanus 
against  Aristobulus,  not  being  complied  with  by  the  latter, 
Pompey  proceeded  to  enforce  it,  attacked  Aristobulus  who 
had  possession  of  the  city,  and  at  last  subdued  it,  with  great 
slaughter  of  the  Jews.  Judea  once  more  became  a  province, 
B.  C.  63,  and  lost  its  new  freedom  ;  nor  from  that  day  to  the 
present  has  she  regained  it.  Was  the  deliverance,  then, 
which  was  effected  under  Judas  Maccabeus  and  his  breth- 
ren, the  adequate  and  entire  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  1 
Was  it  to  this  alone  that  the  "  long  warfare"  led  the  way  ? 
Having  gone  through  this  long  series  of  prophetic  events,  was 
the  end  a  temporal  prosperity  of  only  40  years,  and  an  inde- 
pendence of  only  80  years  1  It  certainly  admits  an  applicor 
18 


206  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  1'2:  I- 

tion  to  the  higher  deliverance  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  go- 
ing forth  under  the  protection  of  "an  angel  strengthening 
him,"  (Luke  2*2:  43)  in  the  new  reign,  the  new  kingdom  of 
heaven,  of  which  he  is  the  head. 

The  phrase  **  at  that  time,"  in  the  first  clause  fixes  the 
commencement  of  the  period  of  struggle  for  freedom  toward 
the  close  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  (11:  40 — 45, 
Interpr.  pp.  57 — 62).  Michael  should  then  take  his  stand  for 
the  Jews,  should  then  arise  and  gird  himself  for  their  aid. 
But  how  long  the  struggle  should  continue,  is  not  told. 

The  phrase  "  at  that  time,"  in  the  last  clause  looks  back 
to  "  the  time  of  trouble"  in  the  middle  clause.  At  that  'peri- 
od of  trouble,  continue  as  long  as  it  might,  (and  we  have  seen 
that  it  continued  beyond  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
and  that  it  was  at  least  25  years  from  the  standing  up  of  Mi- 
chael before  the  prophecy  could  have  had  its  accomplishment  - 
in  its  application  even  to  the  complete  temporal  deliverance 
of  the  Jews,)  at  that  period  of  trouble,  continue  as  long  as 
it  might,  the  kingdom  of  David,  so  Jong  and  so  often  prom- 
ised, should  be  set  up,  the  Son  of  David  come,  of  whom  it 
could  be  so  truly  said,  "  If  the  Son  shall  make  you  free,  ye 
shall  be  free  indeed,"  John  8:  36.  And  so  it  was.  This  was 
the  great  closing  scene  of  trouble  before  Christianity,  the  reign 
of  the  Son  of  God,  was  established.  The  prophet,  looking 
from  a  point  of  time  so  far  back  as  534  B.  C,  down  to  within 
160  years  of  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, — a  period 
which  should  be  a  time  of  trouble  with  only  a  few  intervals  of 
quiet, — could  with  propriety  contemplate  the  salvation  effected 
by  Christ,  as  coming  "  at  that  time."  It  did  come  during  that 
period — a  period  ending  with  such  tribulation  to  the  Jews 
as  a  greater  than  Daniel  not  only  affirmed  "  was  not  since 
the  beginning  of  the  world  to  this  time,"  but  added,"  no,  nor 
ever  shall  be." 

In  the  application  of  12:  1,  both  to  the  deliverance  under 
the  sons  of  Mattathias  and  to  the  higher  spiritual  redemption 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   1.  207 

accomplished  by  Christ,  the  prediction  has  been  regarded 
not  as  predicting  primarily  an  event,  which  event  is  typical 
of  another,  (See  Interpr.  p.  86,)  but  as  a  general  prediction 
which,  as  genus  includes  several  species^  may  include  more 
than  one  event,  but  in  its  application  must  however  be  deter- 
mined by  the  context  and  circumstances  of  the  case.  Should 
such  an  interpretation  be  deemed  inadmissible  here  by  any, 
then  that  would  seem  to  be  preferred  which  passes  entirely 
over  this  period  of  temporal  struggle  and  deliverance,  and 
fixes  solely  on  the  reign  of  the  Messiah.  The  phrase  "  at 
that  time,"  may  signify  when  that  time  shall  he  ended,  (for 
the  authority  so  to  render  it,  see  on  the  phrase  *'  in  the  days 
of  these  kings,"  Interpr.  154,  155,)  and  denote  that  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah  should  come  at  no  remote  period 
after  the  times  of  this  persecuting  king ;  that  it  should  follow 
as  the  next  great  event  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Syrian 
power,  See  on  chaps,  ii,  vii.  The  transition  from  Antiochus 
to  Christ  here  at  the  close,  has  its  parallel  in  the  transition  at 
the  opening  of  the  vision,  11:  3,  4,  from  Xerxes  to  Alexan- 
der— a  period  of  134  years.  It  has  its  parallel  in  the  transi- 
tion in  other  prophets  from  predictions  of  the  captivity  to  that 
of  the  reign  of  Christ,  Is.  chaps,  vii. — ix.  It  has  its  parallel 
in  the  other  visions  of  Daniel  in  the  transition  from  the  end 
of  the  Syrian  kingdom  to  the  establishment  of  the  fifth  king- 
dom ;  for  from  Antiochus  Epiphanes  the  dominion  of  Syria 
over  Palestine  virtually  ceased.  The  deliverance  effected  by 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  not  indeed  from  earthly  trials. 
But  Daniel,  in  accordance  with  the  general  mode  of  the  pro- 
phets, and,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  other  visions,  with  his  own, 
describes  the  spiritual  deliverance  under  the  symbols  of  an 
earthly  and  temporal. 

It  confirms  the  application  of  this  verse  to  Christ,  that,  as 
once  and  again  remarked,  these  visions  of  Daniel  relate  to 
one  and  the  same  great  train  of  events  ;  and  that  this  last,  in 
chapters  xi,  xii,  the  larger  and  fuller  development  of  them, 


208  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  2. 

must  substantially  contain  them  all.  We  look  back  to  the 
chapters  preceding,  and  see  that  mention  is  made  of  a  king- 
dom which  the  God  of  heaven  should  set  up,  and  which  should 
last  forever.  Certainly  that  kingdom  would  not  be  omitted 
in  this  closing  and  more  expanded  vision.  And  accordingly 
we  find,  here  at  the  close  of  the  vision  in  the  place  where  it 
should  be  found,  a  general  prediction  which  may  be  applied 
and  is  properly  applied  to  that  same  kingdom ;  a  prediction 
of  deliverance  harmonizing  perfectly  with  that  in  chap,  vii, 
where  judgment  was  given  to  the  saints  of  the  Most  High, 
and  the  time  came  that  the  saints  possessed  the  kingdom ;  a 
prediction  which  is  fully  realized  only  in  Jesus  as  indeed  "  he 
who  should  have  redeemed  Israel,"  Luke  24:  21.  The  re- 
marks of  Rosenmiiller  on  this  verse,  who  yet  finds  not  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  in  chap,  ix,  are  that  "on  the  death  of  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes  not  a  few  of  the  Jews  seem  to  have  enter- 
tained the  hope  of  the  speedy  arrival  of  the  happy  era  con- 
cerning which  the  ancient  prophets  prophecied,  viz.  that  un- 
der a  great  king  of  the  race  of  David,  there  would  spring  up 
an  altogether  new  and  most  flourishing  state  of  things  espe- 
cially for  the  Jews.  Nevertheless  Gabriel  teaches  that  it 
would  not  immediately  follow,  but  only  after  great  afflictions." 
Some  have  referred  this  deliverance  to  the  Christians  who  es- 
caped death  on  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  fled  to  Pella,  but 
this  is  altogether  too  confined  an  application,  and  does  not 
harmonize  with  the  predictions  in  chaps,  ii,  vii,  and  ix.  The 
deliverance,  as  applied  to  the  times  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
must  be  the  great  salvation  through  faith  in  his  name — "  re- 
demption through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"  Eph. 
1:  7. 

2  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake, 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con- 
tempt. 

The  fact  of  a  resurrection,  both  for  the  just  and  the  unjust, 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  2.  209 

and  an  eternal  retribution,  was,  as  we  have  already  seen,  (In- 
terpr.  pp.  49 — 51,)  most  distinctly  recognized  in  that  *'  time 
of  trouble"  which  began  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
It  was  the  great  motive  which  enabled  many  to  suffer  the 
most  dreadful  tortures  rather  than  disobey  God,  and  depart 
from  his  law.  Must  not  this  passage  teach  the  doctrine  they 
believed  ?  Was  it  not  one  source  of  their  belief,  and  one 
great  means  of  its  confirmation  ?  Must  not  the  prophet  him- 
self have  so  understood  the  passage,  especially  in  connection 
with  what  the  angel  said  to  him  in  the  last  verse  of  this  chap- 
ter, viz.  Thou  shalt  rest  and  stand  in  thy  lot  at  the  end  of 
the  days.  Even  if  the  idea  in  the  first  verse  should  be  only 
that  of  temporal  independence,  achieved  by  the  Maccabees, 
the  context,  and  the  exigency  of  the  case,  demand  here  the 
interpretation  which  makes  the  passage  affirm  the  doctrine 
that  though  man  dies  and  sleeps  in  the  dust,  yet  shall  he  live 
again. 

There  is  indeed  very  highly  figurative  language  employed 
in  the  Scriptures,  to  denote  the  renovation  of  the  mere  civil 
and  religious  state  of  the  Jews.  As  in  the  prophet  Ezekiel 
37:  12—14,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  Behold,  O  my  peo- 
ple, I  will  open  your  graves,  and  cause  you  to  come  up  out 
of  your  graves,  and  bring  you  into  the  land  of  Israel.  And 
ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord,  when  I  have  opened  your 
graves,  O  my  people,  and  brought  you  up  out  of  your  graves, 
and  shall  put  my  Spirit  in  you,  and  ye  shall  live,  and  I  shall 
place  you  in  your  own  land."  But  here  the  context,  and  the 
mention  of  their  being  brought  to  their  own  land,  leave  us  in 
no  doubt  how  to  understand  it,  though  the  very  imagery  em- 
ployed is  doubtless  taken  from  the  doctrine  of  man's  resur- 
rection from  death  to  a  future  state.  But  the  passage  in  Dan- 
iel is  of  a  different  and  higher  character.  The  context  and 
phraseology  and  known  circumstances  of  the  case  in  Ezekiel, 
demand  a  temporal  resurrection ;  in  Daniel,  they  as  impera-  , 
tively  demand  a  spiritual.  In  chapter  xi,  the  prophet  had 
18* 


210  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  3. 

spoken  of  some  who  should  forsake  the  holy  covenant,  and 
of  some  who  should  be  faithful  to  it.  The  faithful  should  fall 
both  by  flame  and  by  sword,  and  die  before  any  renovation  in 
the  condition  of  their  nation,  or  the  coming  of  their  Messiah. 
The  wicked,  the  apostates  from  the  covenant,  they  too  should 
die ;  many  of  them  should  be  cut  off  by  a  violent  death  in 
those  very  times.  But  this  should  not  be  the  end.  Those 
who  should  perish  in  their  struggle  to  rescue  the  sanctuary 
from  its  desecration,  and  die  manfully  for  their  brethren ; 
those  who  should  choose  death  by  flame  or  by  sword,  rather 
than  abandon  the  true  religion  and  embrace  idolatry  ;  those 
who  waited  for  the  promised  redemption  of  Israel,  and  pre- 
ferred it  above  their  chief  joy,  but  died  without  the  sight, 
should  not  lose  their  reward,  nor  fail  to  share  in  the  blessings 
of  the  new  reign.  They  should  live  again,  they  should  see 
the  Messiah,  they  should  inherit  everlasting  life.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  faithless  and  reprobate,  those  who  should  for- 
sake the  holy  covenant  and  sell  themselves  to  wickedness, 
and  sleep  in  the  dust  as  well  as  the  godly, — they  too  should 
live  again,  they  should  wake  up  to  shame  and  everlasting 
contempt,  they  "  should  not  escape  the  hand  of  the  Almighty, 
neither  alive  nor  dead,"  2  Mace.  6:  26.  The  context  there- 
fore, and  phraseology,  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  all  con- 
cur to  establish  the  interpretation  not  of  a  temporal  but  spirit- 
ual resurrection ;  and  the  doctrine  is  here  mentioned  particu- 
larly in  its  application  to  the  many  involved  in  those  troublous 
times. 

3  And  they  that  be  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firma- 
ment ;  and  they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  for- 
ever and  ever. 

This  is  a  further  expansion  of  the  thought  in  v.  2.  It  is  a 
Hebrew  parallelism,  and  may  thus  read:  They  that  be  wise 
and  turn  many  to  righteousness,  shall  shine  as  the  brightness 
of  the  firmament,  even  as  the  stars,  forever  and  ever.     They 


INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  12:  3.  211 

were  the  godly,  such  as  have  already  been  alluded  to;  they 
were  those  who,  like  the  good  Eleazer  and  others,  "  left  a 
notable  example  to  such  as  be  young,  to  die  willingly  and 
courageously  for  the  holy  laws" — "  a  memorial  of  virtue  not 
only  unto  young  men  but  unto  all  his  nation."  The  glory 
mentioned  cannot  be  only  the  glory  of  their  reputation — the 
glory  in  which  their  names  should  live.  True,  the  names  of 
a  very  h\w  have  shone  down,  and  will  still  shine,  through  the 
ages,  as  stars;  and  the  firmament,  once  so  dark  with  clouds 
over  their  heads,  is  bright  with  the  light  of  their  glorious 
deeds.  But  the  glory  mentioned  seems  something  better 
than  earthly  reputation;  it  was  the  glory  they  should  be 
awake  to  enjoy.  They  should  not  lie  forever  trodden  down 
in  the  dust,  but  ascend  on  high  to  enjoy  a  glorious  condition 
evermore.  So  they  believed,  and  believing,  teach  us  how  to 
understand  this  passage  aright. 

The  doctrine  of  immortality  and  future  retribution  was  a 
a  doctrine  which  our  Savior  found  established  among  the 
Jews  when  he  appeared.  It  was  uttered  by  Martha  when 
she  said  of  her  brother  Lazarus,  "  I  know  that  he  shall 
rise  again  at  the  resurrection  in  the  last  day,"  (John  11: 
24).  Our  Lord  explained  and  confirmed  it  more  fully  than 
it  had  ever  been  taught  or  believed  before — "  The  hour 
is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall 
hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ;  they  that  have  done 
good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done 
evil  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation,"  (John  5:  28,  29). 
It  was  re-affirmed  again  and  again  by  the  apostles,  and  by 
one  of  them  in  imagery  like  the  prophet's,  "  One  star  diflfer- 
etli  from  another  star  in  glory.  So  also  is  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,"  1  Cor.  15:  41,  42.  Does  not  the  declaration  in 
12:  2,  3  harmonize  with  these,  and  teach  the  same  great 
truth  1 

In  respect  to  the  prophet's  association  of  the  resurrection 
with  the  deliverance  of  his  people,  it  is  not  so  associated  as  to 


212  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  3. 

bind  them  both  together  in  simultaneous  occurrence,  as  not 
a  few  now  suppose.  Verses  2,  3,  contain  a  truth  asserted  in 
general  terms.  The  phrase  "  at  that  time,"  in  v.  1,  regards 
the  time  of  the  deliverance,  not  of  the  resurrection.  When 
the  deliverance  should  come,  it  should  h^  followed  by  the  res- 
urrection ;  but  at  how  remote  a  period,  the  prophecy  does  not 
say.  The  apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  are  the 
prophets  of  the  New  Testament,  have  fixed  the  event  of  the 
resurrection  at  the  close  of  the  gospel  dispensation. 

The  interpretation  of  Rosenmiiller  on  verses  2,  3,  is  the 
following — "After  the  deliverance  predicted  12:  1,  Gabriel 
teaches  that  on  an  appointed  day  of  judgment  unto  which  the 
dead  shall  be  called  back  to  life,  the  good  should  be  separated 
from  the  wicked  :  the  dead  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
awake  from  the  sleep  of  death  :  some  of  the  dead  shall  rise 
to  everlasting  blessedness,  others  to  everlasting  ignominy." 
"  Nor  can  there  be  a  doubt,"  adds  he,  "  that  the  passage  re- 
lates to  tbe  resurrection  of  the  dead  to  universal  judgment, 
which  the  Jews  were  expecting  at  the  advent  of  their  Mes- 
siah." 

Verses  1 — 3  of  this  chapter  are  made  a  main  pillar  by 
Messrs.  Miller,  etc.,  for  supporting  their  doctrine  of  the  se- 
cond advent  of  Christ,  A.  D.  1843.  They  bind  the  two 
events  of  the  deliverance  and  the  resurrection  together  in  one 
simultaneous  crisis,  asserting  that  the  deliverance  has  not 
yet  come.  But  certainly  nothing  is  more  common  than  for 
the  sacred  writers  to  unite  two  events  together  which  yet  are 
wide  apart.  We  have  seen  it  in  this  very  vision,  on  11:  2, 
3,  where  Xerxes  and  Alexander  are  placed  in  juxta-position, 
when  yet  they  were  120  years  apart.  We  have  seen  it  in  9: 
26,  where  the  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is 
given  in  immediate  connexion  with  that  of  the  cutting  off  of 
the  Messiah,  when  yet  the  one  took  place  40  years  earlier 
than  the  other.  The  same  occurs,  as  already  noticed,  in 
Isaiah  chaps.  7 — ^9:  7,  where  the  events  are  more  than  600 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  3.  213 

years  asunder.  The  deliverance,  however,  here  recorded  by 
the  prophet,  has  already  come,  it  is  the  great  salvation  al- 
ready in  the  world,  which  canae  "  to  the  Jew  first,"  Rom. 
1:  16.  If  the  resurrection  is  to  take  place  only  with  the 
events  predicted  v.  I,  then  there  is  no  resurrection  for  such 
as  have  fiillen  asleep  in  Jesus  since  he  came  into  the  world ; 
and  those  who  bind  the  two  events  together  in  close  proxim- 
ity virtually  take  sides  with  the  Sadducean  members  of  the 
church  at  Corinth,  and  involve  the  prophets,  as  those  mem- 
bers did  the  apostles,  in  the  implication  of  being  false  wit- 
nesses of  God,  1  Cor.  15:  15. 

The  arguments  by  which  their  doctrine  is  derived  from  vs. 
1 — 3,  are,  as  we  have  seen  in  part  on  11:  20,  21,  30,  31,  36, 
(Interpr.  pp.  29,  30,  42 — 44,  54,)  utterly  without  a  basis  in 
the  meaning  of  the  prophecy.  From  11:  40  they  proceed  as 
follows  :  The  king  pushed  at  is  Bonaparte ;  the  king  of  the 
south  designates  the  three  kings  of  Sardinia,  Italy  and  Spain, 
allied  against  Bonaparte ;  the  king  of  the  north  coming 
against  him  like  a  whirlwind,  is  the  king  of  Great  Britain ; 
the  glorious  land  is  Italy ;  the  tidings  out  of  the  east  and 
north  which  troubled  him  was  the  "holy  alliance"  of  kings 
on  the  north  and  east  of  France ;  his  going  forth  with  great 
fury  to  destroy,  was  the  famous  Russian  campaign;  his 
planting  his  tabernacle  in  the  glorious  holy  mountain  was  his 
being  crowned  at  Milan  in  Italy ;  Michael's  standing  up 
means  the  revivals  in  this  country  in  1815 — 1818 ;  the  time 
of  trouble  is  yet  in  futurity,  which  was  first  assigned  to  A. 
D.  1839,  then  changed  to  A.  D.  1840.*     Can  such  exposi- 

*  Miller's  Lectures,  pp.  105—109,  300.  Mr.  Litch,  another  preach- 
er of  the  doctrine,  differs  from  Mr.  Miller  somewhat  in  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  verses  above  mentioned.  The  king  pushed  at  is  still 
Bonaparte  ;  the  king  of  the  south  is  the  Turkish  power  in  Egypt ; 
the  king  of  the  north  is  the  same  Turkish  power  in  Syria ;  the  glori- 
ous land  is  Palestine  ;  tidings  out  of  the  east  and  north  were  the  to- 
tal failure  of  Bonaparte's  East  India  expedition,  and  a  file  of  newspa- 


214  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  3. 

tions  as  these  need  a  formal  refutation  ?  It  is  needed  for 
some,  but  a  brief  notice  will  suffice.  Let  the  reader  see  that 
in  respect  to  the  place  from  which  north  and  south  are  calcu- 
lated, such  writers  have  arbitrarily  shifted  the  ground  from 
Palestine  to  France;  that  they  make  verse  40  mean  three 
kings  together,  when  it  speaks  of  one,  viz.  the  king  of  the 
south,  and  they  introduce  another  person  against  whom  the 
king  of  the  south  pushes,  when  it  is  the  same  king  of  the 
north ;  that  they  give  to  the  city  Milan  in  Italy,  the  appella- 
tion of  glorious  holy  mountain — an  appellation  given  in  the 
Bible  to  Mount  Zion  alone ;  that  they  are  compelled  to  find 
some  such  designation,  because  Bonaparte  was  never  in  Jeru- 
salem ;  that  the  application  of  the  period  of  trouble  first  to 
A.  D.  1839  and  then  changed  to  A.  D.  1840,  has  fallen  to 
the  ground,  thereby  furnishing  premonition  that  their  other 
applications  of  the  prophecy  will  prove  equally  vain  and  false. 
Let  it  be  considered  too  that  these  writers  apply  the  phrase 
"  children  of  thy  people"  to  denote  Christians  and  all  true 
saints  alive  at  this  present  day,  while  they  apply  the  phrase 
"thy  people"  9:  24  also  11:  14,  to  the  Jews  only,  as  indeed 
they  must ;  that  having  applied  it  in  chap.  ix.  to  the  Jews 
only,  yet  in  the  very  next  vision  in  chaps,  x,  xi,  xii,  where  the 

pers  sent  from  Sir  Sidney  Smith  giving  him  an  account  of  the  dis- 
astrous state  of  Frencli  affairs  on  the  continent  of  Europe  ;  his  plant- 
ing the  tabernacles  of  his  palaces  between  the  seas  in  the  glorious 
holy  mountain,  means  his  sojourning  transiently  in  every  kingdom 
between  the  seas  with  which  Europe  is  surrounded  ;  as  to  the  events 
predicted  in  12:  1 — 3,  none  of  them  have  yet  taken  place — Jiddress  to 
the  Clergy,  pp.  98—104.  Between  Mr.  Miller's  and  Mr.  Litch's  in- 
terpretation there  is  but  little  choice.  One  feels  no  disposition  to  rid- 
icule on  such  a  subject  as  this.  And  yet  the  words  of  an  ancient  wri- 
ter very  readily  occur  as  in  point — "  If  a  painter  should  have  a  mind 
to  join  the  neck  of  a  horse  to  a  human  head,  and  taking  the  limbs  from 
all  sorts  of  animals  stick  on  them  all  varieties  of  feathers,  and  then 
make  it  upward  a  beautiful  woman  but  downward  a  loathsome  fish, 
could  you  help  laughing  at  such  a  sight.''" 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  4.  215 

angel  comes  to  tell  Daniel  what  should  befall  his  people — his 
countrymen — in  the  latter  days,  they  turn  aside  the  prophecy 
from  those  for  whom  it  was  intended  and  talk  about  the  Pope, 
and  Bonaparte,  and  holy  alliance,  and  what  not,  with  no  sort 
of  reference  to  the  fortunes  of  the  Jewish  nation,  or  rather 
with  putting  them  entirely  out  of  the  question.  But  what 
extravagant  and  absurd  interpretation  may  not  be  expected 
from  such  as  confound  the  sanctuary  of  God  with  the  city 
Rome,  or  with  Paganism's  sanctuary,  (when  Paganism  had 
none,  for  the  Pagan  temples  had  been  abolished,)  and  the 
continual  burnt-offering  with  the  abolition  of  Pagan  sacri- 
fices, and  protract  the  date  of  this  last  event  more  than  100 
years  from  the  period  assigned  in  all  history  ?  These  persons 
come  down  '*  to  the  end"  in  by-paths  of  their  own  which 
have  led  them  utterly  out  of  the  way.  They  have  turned 
aside  from  "  the  Scripture  of  truth"  to  fables.  They  have 
followed  not  the  pure  light  of  prophecy,  but  an  ignis-fatuus 
kindled  out  of  the  vapors  of  their  own  minds. 

4  But  thou,  O  Daniel,  shut  up  the  words,  and  seal  the  book,  even 
to  the  time  of  the  end :  many  shall  run  to  and  fro,  and  knowledge 
shall  be  increased. 

To  "  seal  the  book"  is  the  continuation  of  the  act  expressed 
in  the  phrase  to  "  shut  up  the  words,"  and  both  mean  not  so 
much  to  bring  the  record  of  the  vision  to  a  close,  as  a  sym- 
bolic action  to  denote  that  the  vision  would  not  be  understood 
for  the  present,  and  was  to  be  reserved  for  future  use  at  "  the 
time  of  the  end,"  11:  40 — 45;  the  period  of  trial  beginning 
under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  issuing  in  deliverance ;  the 
end  of  the  former  things  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and  the 
establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

"  Many  shall  run  to  and  fro,"  is  literally  many  shall  run 
through  [it,  viz.  the  vision]  i.  e.  many  shall  eagerly  peruse 
the  vision,  diligently  investigate  its  meaning,  and  thus  the 
knowledge  of  its  aim  and  purport  should  be  increased,  until 


216  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  5,  6. 

it  should  be  fully  understood  at  the  needed  time.*  This  last 
clause  confirms  the  interpretation  above  given  to  the  phrase 
"  seal  the  book."  Doubtless  the  wise  and  the  godly  read  this 
prophecy  in  those  times  that  tried  their  souls,  and  they  were 
instructed,  comforted,  and  strengthened  by  it.  Doubtless  also 
with  all  the  visions  that  Daniel  saw  and  recorded,  at  different 
times,  it  helped  create  that  "  waiting  for  the  consolation  of 
Israel,"  which  was  manifested  by  the  ''just  and  devout  Sim- 
eon," to  whom  it  "  was  revealed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  that  he 
should  not  see  death,  before  he  had  seen  the  Lord's  Christ. 
And  he  came  by  the  Spirit  into  the  temple,  and  he  took  the 
child  Jesus  in  his  arms,  and  said,  Lord,  now  lettest  thy  ser- 
vant depart  in  peace,  according  to  thy  word ;  for  mine  eyes 
have  seen  thy  salvation."  There  was  also  "  Anna  a  pro- 
phetess, and  she  coming  in,  that  instant,  gave  thanks  likewise 
unto  the  Lord,  and  spake  of  him  to  all  them  that  looked  for 
redemption  in  Jerusalem,"  Luke  2:  25 — 38. 

5  Then  I  Daniel  looked,  and  behold,  there  stood  other  two,  the  one 
on  this  side  of  the  bank  of  the  river,  and  the  other  on  that  side  of 
the  bank  of  the  river. 

The  river  was  the  Hiddekel,  or  Tigris,  where  Daniel  was, 
when  he  saw  the  vision,  10:  4.  The  "  other  two"  persons 
whom  he  beheld,  were  two  angels  besides  the  one  that  had 
been  talking  with  him. 

6  And  one  said  to  the  man  clothed  in  linen,  which  was  upon  the 
waters  of  the  river,  How  long  shall  it  he  to  the  end  of  these  won- 
ders ? 

"  The  man  clothed  in  linen,"  was  the  angel  who  first  ap- 
peared in  the  vision,  and  made  the  revelations  to  Daniel, 
Comp.  7:  16  and  8:  13.     The  question  is  literally.  Unto  how 

*  Mr.  Wm.  Miller  explains  this  as  denoting  that  "  the  means  of 
travel  icill  he  greatly  increased^''  by  railroads,  steamboats,  etc. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL   12:  7.  217 

long  an  end  of  the  wonders  ?  The  demonstrative  adjective 
pronoun  "  these  "  is  the  definite  article  in  the  original.  To 
what  "  wonders"  then,  does  the  question  relate  ?  In  11:  27, 
36,  40,  45,  the  angel  had  used  the  language,  "  yet  the  end 
shall  be  at  the  time  appointed ;"  **  he  shall  prosper  till  the 
indignation  be  accomplished  ;"  "  at  the  tin)e  of  the  end 
shall  the  king  of  the  south  push  at  him  ;"  "  he  shall  come  to 
his  end,  and  none  shall  help  him" — language  spoken  in  con- 
nexion with  king  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  The  word  transla- 
ted "  wonders"  is  substantially  the  same  with  that  translated 
"  marvellous  things"  in  verse  36, — the  only  difference  being, 
that  the  latter  is  a  participial,  and  the  former  a  noun,  while 
both  are  derived  directly  from  the  same  verb ;  and  those 
*' marvellous  things"  are  not  only  spoken  of  the  acts  of  Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes  against  the  religious  institutions  of  the  Jews,, 
but  are  also  found  in  connexion  with  he  "  shall  prosper  till 
the  indignation  be  accomplished."  All  this  shows  the  ques- 
tion to  aim  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  to  the  end  of  the  atro- 
cious deeds  of  the  Syrian  king  against  the  prophet's  country- 
men. Of  this  we  shall  have  more  confirmation  in  the  verses 
following. 

7  And  1  heard  the  man  clothed  in  linen,  which  teas  upon  the  wa- 
ters of  the  river,  when  he  held  up  his  right  hand  and  his  left  hand 
unto  heaven,  and  sware  by  him  that  liveth  forever,  that  it  shall  he 
for  a  time,  times,  and  a  half;  and  when  he  shall  have  accomplished 
to  scatter  the  power  of  the  holy  people,  all  these  things  shall  be  fin- 
ished. 

The  position  of  the  angel  while  making  the  revelations  to 
Daniel,  seems  from  this  verse  to  have  been  on  the  waters  of 
the  river,  probably  mid-way  between  the  banks,  on  one  of 
which  the  prophet  stood. 

The  word  translated  *'  power,"  is  haiid  in  the  original- 
This  signification  of  power  the  word  often  has.  But  it  also 
means,  and  is  sometimes  translated,  portion,  or  part,  as  in 
19 


218  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  7. 

2  Kings 2:  7.  It  is  also  found  in  the  plural  form,  in  Dan.  I: 
21,  where  it  is  translated  "  times,"  "  ten  times  better,"  or  ten 
par^5  better.  It  may  therefore  signify  ^or^fow  in  12:  7.  For 
the  appellation  "  holy  people,"  compare  the  expression  "  up- 
right ones"  11:  17,  also  12:  1.  9:  24,  etc. 

The  clause  "  and  when  he  shall  have  accomplished  to  scat- 
ter the  power  of  the  holy  people,"  is  literally,  and  at  the  ac- 
complishment  of  the  dispersion  of  a  portion^  [or  **  the  power"] 
of  the  holy  people.  In  this  clause,  the  angel  uses  the  phrase, 
"  accomplishment  of  the  dispersion  of  a  portion  of  the  holy 
people,"  as  synonymous  with  the  phrase  "  end  of  the  won- 
ders." 

The  question  being,  How  long  to  the  end  of  the  wonders  ? 
How  long  to  the  end  of  the  dispersion  of  a  portion  of  the  ho- 
ly people,  or  the  end  of  the  season  during  which  they  were 
wholly  without  civil  or  ecclesiastical  power  ?  the  answer  is 
given  of  a  time,  times  and  a  half — the  same  period  found  in 
7:  25,  and  there  shown  to  be  equivalent  to  three  years  and  a 
half  It  would  be  unnecessary  to  say  more  in  illustration  of 
this  phrase,  were  it  not  that  one  authority  was  unintentionally 
passed  over,  on  which  much  stress  has  been  laid.  It  is  found 
in  Leviticus,  chap.  26,  where  God  threatens  to  punish  his 
children  seven  times  for  their  sins — which  in  a  prophetic  sense 
it  is  said  makes  2520  years,  and  commencing  with  the  cap- 
tivity of  Israel  under  Esarhaddon  677  years  B.  C.  runs  out  in 
A.  D.  1843.*  Now  those  declarations  in  Leviticus  read  thus — 
"  If  ye  will  not  yet  for  all  this  hearken  unto  me,  then  I  will  pun- 
ish you  seven  times  more  for  your  sins."  And  still  after,  "  If 
ye  walk  contrary  to  me,  I  will  bring  seven  times  more  plagues 
upon  you."  And  still  after,  "  If  ye  will  not  be  reformed  by 
me  by  these  things,  I  will  punish  you  yet  seven  times  for  your 
sins."  And  yet  once  more,  "  If  ye  will  not  for  all  this  hear- 
ken unto  me,  I,  even  I,  will  chastise  you  seven  times  for  your 

*  Millers  Lectures,  pp.  261,  2.     Cox's  Letters,  p.  66. 


tNTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  7.  219 

Sins,"  vs.  18,  21,  24,  28.  Now  how  can  one  fail  to  see,  that 
just  so  many  probations  are  here  given  ;  that  if  at  the  close 
of  one  period  of  probation  they  were  impenitent  and  unsub- 
dued, they  should  be  punished  yet  more,  and  so  on  ?  If  the 
seven  times  mean  2520  years,  then  they  must  be  multiplied 
four  times,  which  will  make  ten  thousand  and  eighty  years 
— rather  too  many  for  those  who  make  the  world  end  A.  D. 
1843.  This  passage  therefore  affords  not  the  least  counte- 
nance to  the  method  of  the  double  transmutation  of  the  times 
into  days,  and  then  days  into  years ;  and  when  one  looks  at 
the  scope  of  the  chapter,  it  seems  strange  that  it  should  ever 
have  been  quoted  for  such  a  purpose,  and  that  such  an  inter- 
pretation of  it  should  be  widely  adopted.  It  only  seems  not 
quite  so  strange  as  the  manner  in  which,  after  the  "  times" 
are  brought  down  to  the  present  day,  the  prediction  of  the 
scattering  of  the  power  of  the  holy  people*  is  applied  to  the 
divisions  of  modern  Christians  into  sects  or  parties,  (Miller's 
Lectures,  p.  113) — an  evil  that  good  men  may  mourn  over, 
but  not  exactly  the  thing  revealed  to  Daniel. 

In  Dan.  12:  7,  the  context,  and  known  circumstances  and 
facts  in  the  case  clearly  guide  to  the  desecration  by  Apolloni- 
us,  as  the  event  from  which  the  '*  time,  times  and  a  half"  are 
reckoned.  From  that  period  was  the  city  '*  strange  to  those 
that  were  born  in  her ;  and  her  own  children  left  her,"  1 
Mace.  1:  38.  And  it  was  not  until  Judas  said,  '  Let  us  go 
up  to  cleanse  and  dedicate  the  sanctuary,'  and  thereupon 
*^  all  the  host  assembled  themselves  together  and  went  up  into 
mount  Sion,"  (1  Mace.  4:  36,  37,)  that  the  dispersion  began 
to  be  ended. 

"  And  when  he  shall  have  accomplished  to  scatter  the 
power  of  the  holy  people,  all  these  things  shall  be  finished." 
As  the  word  "  things"  is  not  in  the  original,  to  what  does  the 

*  Mr,  Litch,  not  much  less  out  of  the  way,  considers  this  fulfilled 
in  the  "  sjneading'^  of  Christians  to  preach  the  gospel^  i.  e.  in  modern 
missions  at  home  and  abroad  !  p.  108. 


220  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  8. 

demonstrative  pronoun  "  these"  relate  1  Is  the  word  "  won- 
ders" to  be  supplied  from  verse  6?  If  so,  then  the  idea  is, 
that  when  the  prophet's  people  should  be  able  to  come  once 
more  into  the  city  after  their  dispersion,  then  should  com- 
mence the  epoch  of  their  deliverance  from  the  power  of  the 
persecutor,  to  end  with  the  higher  redemption  through  Jesus 
Christ.  And  we  have  seen  it  was  so.  The  holy  people  were  ex- 
iles from  their  city  from  the  desolation  by  Apollonius  till  they 
went  again,  3J  years  after  that  desolation,  to  purify  and  hal- 
low their  sanctuary.  The  purification  of  the  sanctuary  marks 
an  epoch  of  signal  deliverance.  Their  daily  sacrifice  was 
not  again  taken  away,  their  religious  services  not  again  sus- 
pended, until  indeed,  after  continuing  more  than  200  years, 
the  temple  worship  was  again  taken  away  in  the  final  des- 
olation of  their  city  by  the  Romans.  The  holy  people  went 
on  from  conquering  to  conquer,  until  their  independence  was 
once  more  achieved,  and  the  still  greater  Deliverer  at  last 
came. 

But  the  phrase  is  not  like  *'  they  all,"  or  "  all  of  them  ;" 
which  would  most  naturally  have  been  employed,  had  the  angel 
meant  to  say,  all  of  the  wonders.  The  course  of  the  prophe- 
cy seems  here  to  be  this — How  long  shall  it  be  to  the  end  of 
the  infamous  deeds  of  the  persecuting  king  ?  The  answer  is 
given.  Three  years  and  a  half.  When  that  season  of  per- 
plexity, and  of  treading  down  God's  people,  shall  have  passed 
away,  then  what  remains  of  the  vision  shall  haste  to  its  accom- 
plishment ;  then  may  the  holy  people  lift  up  their  eyes,  and 
expect  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven" — a  kingdom  which  shall  be 
soon  set  up  after  these  persecutions,  and  which,  continuing 
until  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  the  Father  in  his  own 
appointed  time,  shall  close  with  the  resurrection  of  all  that 
are  in  the  graves. 

8       And  I  heard,  but  1  understood  not :  then  said  I,  O  my  Lord,  what 
shall  be  the  end  of  these  things. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  8.  221 

This  question  is  not  like  that  asked  by  one  of  the  angels. 
It  pertains  not  to  duration,  but  to  quality  and  particulars.  It 
is  not,  How  long  to  the  end  of  the  wonders?  but,  What  the 
issue  of  these  [things],  What  the  after-part  of  these  things  1 
The  word  wonders  is  not  expressed,  and  the  word  translated 
"  end,"  is  not  the  same  with  that  in  verse  6,  but  the  same 
with  that  translated  "  posterity  "  in  II:  4.  Whether  the  word 
wonders  be  supplied,  or  not,  it  aflfects  not  the  general  senti- 
ment here  contained.  The  question  Daniel  asks,  has  mani- 
fest reference  to  the  last  clause  of  verse  7.  In  respect  to  the 
events  which  should  be  the  accomplishment  of  the  whole  se- 
ries, the  revelation  by  the  angel  had  been  given  in  the  most 
general  and  summary  manner.  Daniel  understood  neither 
their  nature  fully,  nor  the  particulars ;  he  understood  not  the 
relation  of  their  final  issue  to  the  "  time,  times  and  a  half," 
during  which  his  countrymen  should  be  dispersed.  And  a 
glance  at  the  previous  visions  will  sufficiently  show  that  in 
respect  to  those  events  which  should  be  ushered  in  by  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah,  he  had  only  that  measure  of  know- 
ledge granted  to  him,  which  would  naturally  lead  him  to  de- 
sire more.  And  we  have,  in  this  state  of  Daniel's  mind,  an 
illustration  of  the  words  of  our  Lord, — "  Many  prophets  and 
righteous  men  have  desired  to  see  those  things  which  ye  see, 
and  have  not  seen  them ;  and  to  hear  those  things  which  ye 
hear,  and  have  not  heard  them,"  Matt.  13:  17.  Compare  al- 
so the  words  of  the  apostle  Peter  1:  10 — 12,  "Of  which  sal- 
vation the  prophets  have  inquired  and  searched  diligently, 
who  prophecied  of  the  grace  that  should  come  unto  you : 
searching  what  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
which  was  in  them  did  signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand 
the  sufferings  of  Christ,  [Dan.  9:  26,]  and  the  glory  that 
should  follow.  Unto  whom  it  was  revealed,  that  not  unto 
themselves,  but  unto  us  they  did  minister  the  things  which 
are  now  reported  unto  you  by  them  that  have  preached  the 
gospel  unto  you,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  hea^ 
19* 


222  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  9,  10. 

ven ;  which  things  the  angels  desire  to  look  into,"  [Dan.  12: 
5,  6,  also  8:  13.] 

9  And  he  said,  Go  thy  way,  Daniel :  for  the  words  are  closed  up 
and  sealed  till  the  time  of  the  end. 

No  more  disclosures  were  to  be  made,  no  further  particu- 
lars given.  "  The  time  of  the  end,"  would  bring  further 
light,  would  fully  reveal  the  nature  of  the  events,  and  disclose 
them  in  their  particulars,  and  their  final  issue.  The  needed 
light  and  grace  would  be  bestowed  at  the  time,  and  the  pro- 
phecy though  not  fully  understood  now,  would  yet  serve  to 
due  preparation  of  the  heart  beforehand. 

10  Many  shall  be  purified,  and  made  white,  and  tried ;  but  the 
wicked  shall  do  wickedly  :  and  none  of  the  wicked  shall  under- 
stand :  but  the  wise  shall  understand. 

In  those  days  of  trial,  when  the  king  should  have  such  in- 
dignation against  the  holy  covenant,  and  against  those  who 
would  not  forsake  it,  then  the  godly  should  both  study  these 
prophecies,  and  understand  them,  and  find  in  them  the  strong- 
est motives  to  be  faithful  to  the  end.  They  should  not  de- 
spair of  deliverance,  should  not  distrust  God's  word,  and 
though  they  should  fall  by  fire,  and  by  sword,  and  by  captivity, 
and  by  spoil,  their  calamities  should  work  together  for  their 
good.  On  the  other  hand,  the  apostates  from  the  covenant 
would  still  do  wickedly ;  they  would  neglect  God's  word,  as 
we  know  from  history  they  did,  in  their  desire  to  escape  the 
penalty  of  death  to  all  with  whom  might  be  '*  found  the  book 
of  the  testament;"  (1  Mace.  1:  57;)  and  they  would  there- 
fore not  understand,  nor  have  before  them  the  great  motives 
to  endure  unto  the  end.  Moreover,  by  the  light  of  this  series 
of  events,  the  wise  and  godly  should  be  able  to  trace  out  the 
issue  in  the  promised  redemption  of  Israel.  And  so,  as  we 
have  seen,  there  were  those  among  the  prophet's  people,  who, 
in  their  waiting  for  the  consolation  of  Israel,  were  doubtless  giv- 


INTERPRETATION  OP  DANIEL  12:  11.  223 

ing  heed  to  the  light  of  these  prophecies  of  Daniel,  shining  as  in 
a  dark  place.  There  were  then  also  the  wicked,  who,  though 
the  Redeemer  came  to  them,  comprehended  him  not.  They 
believed  not  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  they  rejected  him,  and 
died  in  their  sins. 

11  And  from  the  time  that  the  daily  sacrifice  shall  be  taken  away, 
and  the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate  set  up,  there  shall  he  a 
thousand  two  hundred  and  ninety  days. 

The  mode  of  reckoning  time  among  the  Jews  was  different 
at  different  periods.  At  first,  they  seem  to  have  followed  the 
Egyptian,  (See  Gen.  chaps,  vii,  viii,)  which  gave  365  days  to 
the  year,  and  divided  the  year  into  twelve  months  of  thirty 
days  each,  except  the  last,  which  had  thirty-five  days.  In  the 
times  of  the  Maccabees,  and  of  Josephus,  they  followed  the 
Grecian  mode — twelve  months  to  the  year,  each  month  alter- 
nately of  thirty  days  and  twenty-nine  days,  which  made  a 
year  contain  354  days.  At  the  expiration  of  every  three  years, 
they  added,  after  the  month  Adar,  (the  last  month  of  t*heir 
year,)  an  intercalary  month,  to  make  their  general  time  cor- 
respond with  the  Roman.  Regarding  the  days  as  literal  days, 
(See  Interpr.  p.  81 — 86,)  and  computing  them  by  this  latter 
method  as  most  appropriate  because  they  concerned  the  Jews 
when  they  reckoned  time  in  this  manner,  we  have  three  years, 
six  months,  and  about  fifteen  or  twenty  days,  which  are  the 
equivalent  to  time,  times  and  a  half — only  the  angel  here  gives 
the  exact  number  of  the  days,  the  precise  duration  of  the  de- 
secration.* Even  on  the  supposition,  that  only  360  days  to 
the  yeart  are  meant,  it  would  make  but  three  years  and  seven 

*  We  have  seen  that  Josephus  gives  this  same  number,  with  the 
slight  variation  of  1296  for  1290,  Interpr.  pp.  93,  129. 

t  This  mode  of  reckoning  seems  to  be  pursued  in  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation. By  comparing  Rev.  12:  6  and  12:  14  we  find  that  twelve  hun- 
dred and  sixty  days  mean  the  same  with  time^  times  and  a  half.  In 
Rev.  11:2  and  13:  5,  the  expression  forty-two  months  is  found,  and 


224  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12*.  11. 

months  with  which  the  time,  times  and  a  lialf  would  corres- 
pond according  to  the  usage  of  Scripture,  See  Interpr.  p.  126 
— 130.  This  duration,  as  we  have  seen,  embraces  the  period 
of  desecration  from  the  act  of  Apollonius  early  in  June  of  the 
year  168  B.  C.  to  the  purification  by  Judas  Maccabeus  in  the 
month  of  Dec.  165  B.  C.  There  is  an  apparent  objection  to 
this,  that  though  the  daily  sacrifice  was  taken  away  in  June 
of  168  B.  C,  "  the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate  "  was 
not  "  set  up  "  until  the  December  following ;  and  from  the 
setting  up  of  that  till  the  dedication  of  the  sanctuary  was  but 
three  years.     The  objection  admits  of  two  solutions. 

The  association  of  these  two  acts  in  verse  11,  may  no  more 
denote  that  the  same  term  of  time  is  predicated  of  both, 
than  the  association,  by  one  evangelist,  of  the  thieves  in 
the  act  of  reviling  our  Savior  on  the  Cross,  teaches  that  both 
reviled  him,  when,  as  we  are  informed  in  another  place,  it 
was  the  act  of  only  one.  The  leading  event  was  the  abolition 
of  t]j,e  daily  sacrifice ;  and  this,  though  it  happened  earlier, 
draws  along  with  it  the  mention  of  the  other. 

(2)  We  learn  from  1  Mace.  4:  57 — 60,  that  after  the  ded- 
ication, Judas  caused  the  gates  and  chambers  to  be  renewed. 
He  also  caused  the  mountain  of  the  sanctuary  to  be  fortified 
with  strong  walls  and  high  towers.  This  last  was  a  necessa- 
ry work  to  secure  those  who  went  up  to  worship  in  the  sanctua- 
ry from  being  annoyed,  and  even  slain,  by  the  Syrian  garrison 
stationed  in  the  city  over  against  the  temple.  Now  if  we  as- 
sociate the  two  acts  of  taking  away  the  daily  sacrifice  and 
setting  up  the  abomination  of  desolation,  and  consider  them 

in  11:  3  the  duration  of  1260  days  again.  The  events  to  which  these 
periods  of  time  relate  in  the  prophet  Daniel  and  in  the  apostle  John, 
the  context  plainly  shows  to  be  different.  But  the  passages  in  Reve- 
lation afford  sufficient  biblical  authority  for  those  who  choose  to  reckon 
360  days  to  the  year,  though  the  mode  of  reckoning  time  by  one  sa- 
cred writer  in  one  age  is  not  necessarily  the  same  with  that  adopted 
by  another  sacred  writer  in  a  different  age. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:  12.  225 

to  last  just  three  years,  the  remaining  six  or  seven  months  are 
not  more  than  sufficient  time  for  the  entire  renewal  and  de- 
fence of  the  sanctuary,  after  the  event  of  its  dedication. 

These  terms  of  time  may  possibly  be  different  from  each 
other — the  first  exactly  three  years  and  six  months,  and  the  se- 
cond 1290  days;  the  former  extending  from  the  dispersion  to 
the  dedication,  the  latter  from  the  setting  up  of  the  abomination 
of  desolation  to  the  building  of  the  wall,  and  chambers  and 
gates.  It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  last  date  of  1290  days, 
the  events,  which  are  their  limit,  are  not  expressed,  but  are  left 
to  be  implied. 

12       Blessed  is  he  that  waiteth,  and  cometh  to  the  thousand  three 
hundred  and  five  and  thirty  days. 

These  days  are  45  more  than  the  1290.  Reckoning  the 
1290  days  to  close  with  the  dedication  of  the  sanctuary  in  the 
I48th  year  of  the  epoch  of  the  Greeks  and  the  25th  day  of 
the  month  Casleu,  (the  ninth  month  of  the  sacred  year,  but 
the  third  of  the  civil  year,)  the  45  days  would  reach  into  the 
11th  month  Sebat  of  the  same  year  148,  corresponding  with 
our  Februrary  164  B.  C.  Reckoning  the  1290  days  to  close 
with  the  complete  renewal  of  the  sanctuary,  and  to  extend 
between  six  and  seven  months  beyond  the  dedication,  they 
reach  from  the  9th  month  of  the  year  148  to  the  Jifth  month 
of  the  149th  year,  which  corresponds  with  our  August  164  B. 
C.  What  event,  then,  corresponds  with  the  1335  days  ?  The 
author  of  the  first  book  of  Maccabees  (and  so  does  Josephus) 
relates  that  Antiochus  died  in  the  149th  year  of  the  epoch  of 
the  Greeks ;  and  as  they  specify  the  ni?ith  month  of  the  year 
one  hundred  forty-eight  as  the  time  when  the  sanctuary  was 
dedicated,  there  must  have  been  of  course  more  than  45  days 
from  that  period  to  the  death  of  Antiochus — for  they  fix  An- 
tiochus's  death  in  the  year  one  hundred  and  forty-nine,  and 
from  the  dedication  to  149  were  ninety-four  or  jive  days.     If 


226  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:    12. 

the  1290  days  close  with  the  dedication,  then  the  occasion  of 
blessedness  could  not  be  the  death  of  Antiochus,  i.  e.  on  the 
admission  that  the  date  assigned  for  his  death  by  Josephus 
and  the  first  of  Maccabees  is  correct.  His  death  could  nei- 
ther be  the  epoch  of  blessedness,  nor  the  point  of  transition  to 
any  yet  higher  occasion  of  blessedness.  But  reckoning  the 
1290  days  to  close  with  the  complete  renewal  of  the  sanctuary, 
then  as  we  have  seen  above,  the  1335  days  reach  to  a  point 
in  the  year  149,  which  harmonizes  perfectly  with  the  date  as- 
signed for  the  death  of  this  persecutor  of  the  holy  people. 

The  article  in  the  Christian  Review  that  has  been  referred 
to,  fixes  these  several  dates  as  follows :  the  1150,  (equivalent  to 
time,  times  and  a  half,)  to  the  dedication  ;  the  1290,  to  An- 
tiochus's  death,  making  140  more  than  1150  and  reaching 
of  course  into  the  year  149  ;  1335,  the  time  when  the  news 
of  Antiochus's  death  reached  Jerusalem.  The  chief  objec- 
tion to  this  seems  the  difficulty  of  harmonizing  the  1150 
days  with  time,  times  and  a  half;  for  according  to  the  mode 
in  which  it  is  known  that  the  Jews  computed  time,  three 
years  would  be  at  least  1092  days,  which  would  leave  less  than 
two  months  for  the  half  a  time,  and  not  more  than  two  months 
and  ten  days,  reckoning  360  days  to  the  year.  The  author 
of  the  Review,  along  with  many,  makes  the  month  Casleu 
coincide  with  our  month  November — reckoning  the  begin- 
ning of  Nisan,  the  first  month  of  the  sacred  year,  from  the 
new  moon  of  March ;  but  Robinson  in  Calmet  says  that  the 
month  Nisan  may  be  reckoned  with  great(^propriety  from 
the  new  moon  of  April,  which  makes  Imsau  coincide  with 
our  December. 

Antiochus's  death  was  a  fit  season  for  congratulation,  espe- 
cially as  he  was  cut  off  before  he  could  execute  his  last  and 
bitterest  threats.  It  has  its  parallel,  as  a  season  of  congratu- 
lation, in  the  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  king,  which  the  pro- 
phet Isaiah  made  an  occasion  of  a  song  of  rejoicing,  14:  7,  8, 
"  The  whole  earth  is  at  rest,  and  is  quiet,  they  break  forth 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   12.  227 

into  singing.  Yea,  the  fir  trees  rejoice  at  thee,  and  the  ce- 
dars of  Lebanon,  saying,  Since  thou  art  laid  down,  no  feller 
is  come  up  against  us." 

But  the  angel  may  have  had  in  view,  and  the  context  seems 
to  show  that  he  did  actually  have  in  view,  a  higher  occasion 
of  blessedness  than  this.  If  in  verse  1,  standing  at  a  point 
534  B.  C,  he  looked  down  the  ages  and  saw  the  kingdom  of 
the  Messiah  apparently  soon  approaching  after  the  great  cri- 
sis of  which  he  had  just  spoken;  if  in  verse  7,  he  meant  to 
be  understood  to  assert  that  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  should  be  hastened  after  the  "time,  times  and  a 
half"  persecution  under  the  king  of  the  north,  then  may  he 
here  in  verse  12,  congratulate  those  godly  ones  who  should 
be  permitted  to  come  to  this  expiration  and  final  issue  of 
the  1335  days — this  "  time  of  the  end"  corresponding  with  the 
prediction  "  In  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven 
set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed."  It  was 
a  meet  object  for  him  thus  to  speak,  to  induce  the  true  sons 
of  Israel  to  live  in  constant  expectancy  of  the  event,  until  the 
Messiah  should  indeed  come.  The  benediction  thus  pro- 
nounced was  re-affirmed  by  our  Lord  himself,  in  the  spirit  in 
which  it  was  first  uttered  by  the  angel ;  for  when  he  said  to 
his  disciples,  '*  Many  prophets  and  righteous  men  have  desired 
to  see  those  things  which  ye  see,  and  have  not  seen  them," 
he  also  said,  "  Blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  the  things  that 
ye  see,"  Luke  10:  23.  Matt.  13:  17. 

The  manner  in  which  the  dates  of  this  chapter  are  inter- 
preted by  those  who  compute  the  days  as  years,  is  quite  di- 
verse. Dr.  Adam  Clarke  applies  the  1290  days  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  Mohammedanism,  and  as  that  arose  A.  D.  612, 
it  will  as  he  thinks  come  to  an  end  about  A.  D.  1900.  The 
1335  days  he  reckons  from  the  same  date,  A.  D.  612,  which 
reaches  down  to  A.  D.  1950,  at  which  time,  as  he  thinks,  the 
fulness  of  the  Gentiles  will  be  brought  in,  and  the  Great  Sab- 
bath soon  after  be  ushered  in  with  the  year  6000  of  the  crea- 


228  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   12. 

tion  of  the  world,  and  2000  from  the  birth  of  our  Savior. 
Scott  and  others  place  the  destruction  both  of  Mohamme- 
danism and  Papacy  at  the  end  of  the  1260  days,  occupy  the 
next  30  (J 290)  with  the  extermination  of  every  antichristian 
power,  and  introduce  the  Millennium  at  the  close  of  the  1335. 
By  fixing  the  rise  of  the  Papacy  in  A.  D.  606,  they  coincide 
in  general  results  with  those  already  given  from  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke. 

Mr.  Miller  and  his  coadjutors  apply  the  time,  times  and  a 
half— equivalent  to  1260  days — to  the  continuance  of  the 
papal  power  from  the  fall  of  the  Ostrogothic  kingdom  A.  D. 
533,  which  they  consider  one  of  the  three  horns  subdued  by 
the  little  horn,  thus  making  A.  D.  1798  the  epoch  of  the 
overthrow  of  the  papal  power ;  and  they  find  what  they  con- 
sider this  overthrow  in  the  act  of  the  French  General  Ber- 
thier  who  entered  Rome  that  year,  deposed  the  Pope,  car- 
ried him  captive  to  France,  and  substituted  a  republican  for 
the  papal  government.  The  1290  days  they  add  to  A.  D. 
508  (the  date  which  they  assign  to  the  abolition  of  the  pagan 
sacrifices,  Interpr.  pp.  43,  44),  and  thus  make  them  tally 
with  1798  again.  The  1335  days  they  put  on  to  the  same 
508,  and  make  them  reach  down  to  A.  D.  1843,  when  the 
end  of  all  things  they  say  will  literally  have  come. 

All  these  calculations  are  utterly  without  the  sanction  of 
scriptural  usage.  The  last  is  only  more  arbitrary  and  extra- 
vagant. We  have  seen  that  this  open-sesame  number  508 
cannot  be  found  anywhere  in  history,  but  owes  its  existence 
to  the  mere  cabalistic  authority  of  those  who  make  so  much 
of  it.  The  next  date  A.  D.  538  makes  even  less  for  them  ; 
for  the  Ostrogothic  kingdom  they  admit  was  conquered  by 
Justinian's  army,  (the  Roman  soldiers,)  when  with  their  in- 
terpretation of  the  little  horn  as  the  Pope,  they  ought  to  make 
the  Pope  the  destroyer  of  the  Ostrogothic  kingdom.  They 
avoid  this  inconsistency  only  by  saying  that  the  expression 
7:  8,    **  before  whom  there   were  three  of  the  first  horns 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   12.  229 

plucked  up  by  the  roots,"  means  that  they  were  plucked  up  6c- 
fore  in  point  of  time ^  or  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  establish- 
ment of  the  little  horn  ;*  but  the  declaration  *'  he  shall  subdue 
three  kings,"  7:  24,  decides  the  point  that  it  was  the  little 
horn  which  plucked  up  the  three  others.  The  number  1798 
has  less  plausibility  than  either  5C8  or  538.  The  papal  do- 
minion is  wider  and  stronger  now  than  it  was  then.  Says  a 
celebrated  English  writer,  than  whom  none  is  a  better  judge 
on  this  subject.  "  During  the  eighteenth  century  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Church  of  Rome  was  constantly  on  the  decline. 
During  the  nineteenth  century  this  fallen  church  has  been 
gradually  rising  from  her  depressed  state,  and  re-conquering 
her  old  dominion."!  She  had  been  weaker  before  1798  than  at 
that  time,  and  from  that  very  prostration  rose  up  forthwith  in 
more  might.  So  utterly  does  Mr.  Miller  and  his  associates 
stumble  at  noon-day  over  the  plainest  facts  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Miller's  mode  of  solving  some  of  the  difficulties  which 
trouble  him  on  the  days  here  specified,  is  in  harmony  with 
what  has  already  been  presented.  The  2300  days,  which 
Daniel  did  not  at  first  understand,  (chap,  viii,)  the  angel  had 
been  sent  again  to  explain  to  him  in  chap.  ix.  But  Daniel 
here  says,  1  heard^  hut  understood  not ;  i.  e.  "  he  could  not 
tell,"  Mr.  Miller  thniks,  ''whereabouts  in  his  grand  number  of 
2300  days,  the  end  of  Papal  Rome  carried  him,  he  under- 
stood not  how  this  time  was  divided."^  In  other  words,  he 
had  the  whole  cloth,  but  did  not  know  how  to  cut  it.  **  But  in 
verses  10,  11,"  Mr.  Miller  adds,  "  Daniel  had  all  he  could  ask 
for,  and  now  could  understand  the  time  and  length  and  part 
of  every  division  which  the  angel  had  given  him  in  his  in- 
struction so  far  as  to  fill  up  his  vision  of  2300  days."§  Let  one 
of  Mr.  Miller's  disciples  instruct  him ;  who  says,  "  It  was  not 
for  Daniel  to  know  the  full  meanings  that  was  reserved  for 
others:'\\ 

*  Litch,  p.  64.  t  Macauly's  Miscellanies,  Vol.  111.  p.  357. 

X  Lectures,  p.  102.      §  lb.  p.  103.  ||  Litch,  p.  107. 

20 


230  INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   13. 

13       But  go  thou  thy  way  till  the  end  he  :  for  thou  shalt  rest,  and 
stand  in  thy  lot  at  the  end  of  the  days. 

Some,  as  Rosenmijller,  suppose  the  word  end  to  refer  to 
the  end  of  the  prophet's  life,  as  when  the  Psalmist,  39:  4,  says, 
**  Lord  make  me  to  know  mine  end."  But  as  it  has  the 
article,  it  refers  to  the  end  above  mentioned,  and  the  senti- 
ment is.  Be  not  anxious  to  know  the  times,  and  seasons,  and 
particulars.  Go  thou  thy  way,  and  wait  patiently,  and  let 
the  end  come  at  the  time  and  manner  it  may.  Thou  shalt 
rest  from  thy  trials,  and  labors,  and  arise  again  from  thy  sleep 
in  the  grave,  to  have  thy  portion  in  the  Messiah's  reign. 
When  those  days  shall  have  ended,  then  shall  shortly  come 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  though  thou  shalt  die  before 
it  arrive,  yet  because  thou  hast  endured,  and  by  thine  own 
example  hast  instructed  many  how  to  be  faithful  to  God  in 
the  midst  of  temptations  and  persecutions,  thou  shalt  not  fail 
to  be  a  partaker  of  the  fullest  blessings  of  that  future  happy 
reign.* 

More  than  2000  years  have  passed  since  Daniel  went  to 
his  rest  in  the  grave.  The  issue  respecting  which  he  inquired, 
has  come  in  part — not  in  one  simultaneous  cluster  of  events, 
but  in  such  order  of  occurrence  as  hath  pleased  him  who  seeth 
the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  with  whom  a  thousand  years 
are  as  a  day.  The  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  the  prophet 
foresaw,  is  still  working  deliverance  in  the  world,  and  the  full 
end  is  not  yet ;  the  resurrection  of  which  Daniel  wrote,  and 
which  our  Savior  taught,  and  Paul  preached,  has  not  yet 
come.  It  is  still  before  us,  it  will  be  still  before  multitudes 
when  1843  shall  have  expired.     The  question  of  the  time  of 

*  This  sentiment  is  given  to  this  last  verse  both  by  Gesenius  and 
Rosenmaller.  Neither  the  words  nor  the  context  will  bear  the  sense 
given  by  some — that  of  Daniel's  standing  in  his  lotas  a  prophet.  Nor 
are  we  at  liberty  to  conjecture,  in  its  illustration,  that  Daniel  might 
have  been  one  of  the  saints  who  arose  from  their  graves  at  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  Matt.  27:  52,  53, 


INTERPRETATION  OF  DANIEL  12:   13.  231 

its  occurrence  has  nothing  to  do  with  our  duty  to  be  prepared 
for  it.  Let  the  truly  wise  and  godly  go  his  way,  until  the  end 
be,  not  concerning  himself  with  the  calculation  of  the  times 
and  seasons,  but  holding  himself  in  the  posture  of  expectance, 
as  Daniel,  and  as  primitive  Christians  did,  though  the  objects 
to  which  they  looked  were  in  reality  centuries  off.  The  final 
issues  are  unrevealed.  To  attempt  to  find  them  out  is  to  de- 
cypher  an  unwritten  record,  and  against  the  express  admoni- 
tion of  the  Great  Master,  '*  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the 
times  or  the  seasons  which  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own 
power,"  Acts  1:  7.  To  pretend  to  know  them  is  to  set  one's 
self  above  not  only  prophets  but  apostles.  If  faithful  to  God 
and  duty,  if  one  endures  temptation,  if  his  love  does  not  grow 
cold  when  iniquity  aboundeth,  if  he  neglects  not  God's  word, 
but  searches  it,  and  finds  in  it  truth  to  nourish  and  confirm 
his  faith  and  hope,  then  shall  he  rest,  and  his  death  shall  be 
precious  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord ;  he  shall  stand  in  his  lot  at 
the  end  of  the  days,  and  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firma- 
ment, even  as  the  stars  forever  and  ever.  Then  too  shall  he 
meet  all  the  wise  and  godly,  "  who  through  faith  stopped  the 
mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the  violence  of  fire,  escaped  the 
edge  of  the  sword,  turned  to  flight  the  armies  of  the  aliens, 
were  tortured  not  accepting  deliverance,  that  they  might 
OBTAIN  A  BETTER  RESURRECTION.  They  Wandered  in  deserts 
and  in  mountains,  and  in  dens  and  caves  of  the  earth.  These 
all  received  not  the  promise,  God  having  provided  some  bet- 
ter thing  for  us,  that  they  without  us  should  not  be 
MADE  perfect,"  Heb.  11:  32 — 40. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE    OF    25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


YB  27770 


<ssui 

3S/bS-d, 

n 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


